CUViper

How about synthetic?

Even Teleport Pro can only follow links. Normally when you get a directory listing of a web site, it is still really the web server looking at the directory, gathering the file names, and formatting it in html with links to the real files. So all Teleport Pro does is parse out the links and recurse into the link targets. Any files that are not linked to will not be gathered.

Quote: What date and version are shown in device manager for your ACPI? I am just doing a comparison, cause I think there is something wrong somewhere in my system. Date: 11/14/1999 Version: 5.0.2183.1 This is exactly what my Win2k is showing. Quote: I was told I should either have a tab for ACPI or APM under my power options in control panel. I have neither. My computer is a work computer and isn't really that old. It's a Dell Dimension 933r PIII. Mine doesn't have those tabs either. I only have "Power Schemes", "Advanced", "Hibernate", and "UPS". Quote: I was told that my system not shutting down or restarting (Just freezes after saving settings) was probably tied in with ACPI. Is there maybe a newer driver for this I just don't have? I remember being told ACPI can only be installed during a fresh OS install. True? Thanks I'm not sure what's wrong with your computer, but at least I can verify that it's not the things you listed above. My computer is the same in those respects and I have no problems. Are you running ServicePack 4? Have you kept up with Windows Update?

I've got the Antec Sonata, and I love it! It is a VERY quiet case - I was shocked the first time I turned it on. NewEgg has it for $96: http://www.newegg.com/app/viewproduct.asp?DEPA=1&submit=Go&description=sonata Info from Antec: http://www.antec-inc.com/pro_details_enclosure.php?ProdID=15138

That's a pretty cool app! I don't think you'll want to just switch Space and F2 though... it looks like this program will remap the keys across the entire operating system. I doubt you'll want to reach up to the F2 key every time you need a space in something you are typing!

Space actually selects files... If you open a folder and click on an empty space so that no file is selected, then hitting space will resect the last file that was selected.

While it's great that you saved your company money, for MOST businesses you would be violating the licensing terms to use the Action Pack for everyday use. Quote: How can I use the software provided in the subscription? The software included with the subscription can be used for internal business use, testing, evaluation, demonstration, training, and educational purposes only. For example, you can use the Action Pack software to host your company's intranet but it CANNOT be used to host a commercial Web site. This is considered a production environment that is outside the scope of the software's intended purpose.

The clockspeeds that you see on memory specs are not the speed that they must run at. Rather, it is a rating for the maximum speed that the part is guaranteed to function properly. Often they can even be run faster than the spec - thus the success of overclocking.

If you guys still need something for this, I just saw "Copy It Anyway" in Lockergnome: http://www.digitalsystem.co.yu/download.html (at the bottom)

This BBCode: Code: [url=http://www.google.com/]Google[/url] ends up as this HTML: Code: <a href="http://www.google.com/Google" target="_blank" class="postlink"></a> Should be a simple fix...

Take a look at FileMon and RegMon from SysInternals: http://www.sysinternals.com/ntw2k/utilities.shtml Though I think this is not something that you'll want to leave running all the time - even in just a minute, there are TONS of access to files and the registry...

Quote: It often takes me 45 minutes to go less then two miles from my university to my house. Even more during rain/snow. If were in that scenario, I would just walk...

All you need to do is use QFixApp (in the compatibility toolkit) to enable the "EmulateHeap" option. Just this option, no others are needed. After doing this I would put back the gimme.dll file, because removing that breaks some things, like player portraits and LAN play...

What Tomay was getting at is that most USB2.0 devices will be backwards compatible with USB1.1, but you should make sure with the particular device before you buy it...

Quote: If the drive states that it is USB 2.0 & 1.1 compatible, this probably means that it's actually a USB 1.1 device - it's being a bit cheeky, and stretching the truth a little, since USB 2 is backwards compatible with USB 1.x devices. Not necessarily - you can make a USB 2.0 device that will operate at the USB 2.0 high speed, but if it is on an older USB host, then it will operate just fine at USB 1.1 full speed. See the following excerpt from the spec: Quote: 7.1.5.2 High-speed Device Speed Identification The high-speed Reset and Detection mechanisms follow the behavioral model for low-/full-speed. When reset is complete, the link must be operating in its appropriate signaling mode (low-speed, full-speed, or high-speed as governed by the preceding usage rules), and the speed indication bits in the port status register will correctly report this mode. Software need only initiate the assertion of reset and read the port status register upon notification of reset completion. High-speed capable devices initially attach as full-speed devices. This means that for high-speed capable upstream facing ports, RPU (1.5 kΩ ±5%) must be connected from D+ to the 3.3 V supply (as shown in Figure 7-1) through a switch which can be opened under SW control. After the initial attachment, high-speed capable transceivers engage in a low level protocol during reset to establish a high-speed link and to indicate high-speed operation in the appropriate port status register. This protocol is described in Section 7.1.7.5. Just to be clear, USB 1.0 and 1.1 define low-speed (1.5 Mbps) and full-speed (12 Mbps) operation, and USB 2.0 adds high-speed (480 Mbps).

You will need to set it to at least a kernel dump, and preferably a complete dump. Look for it in the System Properties -> Advanced tab...

Dependency Walker

Well, c++ is really just an extension of c, so all of your c code will still compile under Visual C++. If you want, you could just ease yourself into the new features slowly. Offhand, I think the main difference is the addition of classes. Probably the best way for you to go would be to get a C++ programming book and jump straight to the section on classes. Of course, if you want to make a gui, then that's a big bag-o-tricks. Best to read up on classes first, and then you can get into the gui stuff (forms, controls, etc.)...

I was wondering - does anyone have the Windows XP SP1 DDK CD that they could rip and let me download? I ordered one from Microsoft for free (well, with $15 shipping), but my order status says they're backordered, and they aren't giving an ETA. I need this to write a driver for a new product at work, so the sooner I get this, the better. So here's hoping someone here can hook me up...

Quote: Just a thought, but is there a way that you could isolate the 2 parts of the circuit using, for example, optical links rather than electrical links. I started to get into RobotWars a couple of years ago, and this problem of EM interference happens in robots too (low power radio control circuits controlling high power motor control circuits) - one of the solutions mooted was whether you could use some kind of an opto-isolator to separate the 2 parts of the circuit? I don't remember the specifics, but it's a thought. Hmm, interesting idea... That would certainly help with ground-bounce issues. It won't do anything for the radiated EMI, but we might be able to use more aggressive shielding with the isolation in place. I will look into it! Quote: And congrats on the internship, BTW - I know how much competition there is for those things! Hope you learn lots and have fun doing it! Thanks!

Quote: Whew... that does not sound like a ton of fun! That's like coding without watch windows & step tracing on my end doing MIS/IS/IT info.systems type work (where I make my living). I do get a sort of watch window, by using oscilloscopes to probe various traces and characterize their behavior. Perhaps a more apt analogy of the problem would be that I don't have the source code. To tie this in to our other thread, I have to try to "disassemble" the analog (ie real-word) characteristics of the circuit and EM interactions, and then modify (hack?) it to meet my needs. Or perhaps it's just late and I'm seeing correlations where they don't exist... :x Quote: You're lucky, sounds like you have a GOOD boss who's actually been there, I have had many of those, but also many who did not know a thing about this stuff... yet ran IT/IS/MIS dept.'s, which made not alot of sense to me! I agree - the right leadership makes all the difference. Already we've established a sort of "mentoring" relationship, which is great for me to enhance this learning experience. Quote: I think you will do really well, I wish you luck... you get good at it, you can probably make a nice living (since most coders don't gravitate to that end of things, I did not for one), & maybe even write drivers for the boards we talk about here. Like Video cards... who knows? One day, You may be @ say, NVidia! Thanks man... I can only hope that I get into a big company like that. I may be crazy, but I want to go even deeper than drivers and be on the team that actually designs the boards and chips! So who knows...

The components are very well shielded wherever possible, but as I tried to explain before, the very nature of the switching circuitry requires SOME interlinking between analog and digital. It's just that little part where they connect that manages to create interference. The thing that makes dealing with EMI of this nature so difficult is that you really can't model EMI into any calculations. It really ends up being just a guessing game of finding a solution that will solve the interference without creating other problems. I did get my problem fixed - in this case a ferrite bead on the clock line cleaned it right up. As one of the engineers was telling me, dealing with EMI really becomes a matter of experience - as you go on you develop your own cookboook of solutions to various types of problems. My boss, who was the lead designer of the system and is now VP of R&D, is very good about encouraging me to look for better solutions. The relays especially are my biggest gripe - they work well, but they also account for about 80% of the board realty. I have yet to find anything that would be any better though, or even the same. Which leads evidence that it really was thought out well the first time through.

Quote: Possibly, but a hex editor would be able to ID the same area in a program near its ending by knowing the look of instructions for the jump table many executeable type virus use, & then alter that, OR go to the end of the program where the virus attaches itself & search for its unique string there (this IS its mugshot, that unique codestring used to ID it but looking at it in its binary form instead of Assembly instructions instead in a debugger). A hex editor is not all that different from a disassembler. If I wanted to, I could take a hex editor and translate each byte into the corresponding op-codes. This is all that a disassembler is doing; it just automates the process... Quote: Quote: One thing I just thought of, is that Visual Studio's debugger will disassemble a program if the source code is not available. Which means that it obviously has a disassembler... Would your program complain about having VS open? Nope, I don't watch for that. It is a legit tool as far as I am concerned, but its debugger only activates iirc, if a program crashes & you replaced DrWatson with it. Not true... I can open up ANY running process simply by going to Tools -> Debug Processes. It will attach to the process, and then I can pause it, browse through the code, and do all the standard debugging stuff. If you have the source code and it was compiled with debugging symbols, then it will show your position in the original source. But even if you don't have the source code and there are no debugging symbols, it will still show you the disassembled code. To test this, I just attached to iexplore.exe and started stepping through the code - not a problem! Of course I have no reason to go wading around through x86 assembly. Ugh! If you've ever developed assembly for any other processor, you'll know how horrid x86 assembly is. Quote: The main point is, having a debugger around is one thing, knowing how to use it is another... additionally, even if you do, it's NOT all that easy to use to disassemble for a particular branch of code anyhow. With today's code using runtimes &/or .VCL or .OCX & .DLL calls, that code often branches to prebuilt code from the OEM for those things, not code that is unique & written by the developer that is the prize sought by the hacker. Well hell, if you can't figure out how to use a debugger effectively, then you're not going to get anywhere digging through assembly... Quote: Still, guys are out there that know how it's done, & have the patience for it. I have had it done is why I protected against it, & saw my work on Wahh-rezz sites in the past enough to know its done... I was using canned shareware protectants back then. They failed me. My guess is that MOST of the people involved in the "w4r3z" scene are simply couriers, and couldn't hack a program if their life depended on it. But it only takes a few good programmers to crank out cracks for everyone else to use... Quote: Quote: In fact, I think most debuggers can disassemble a running process. IF it cracks up... they will catch it at that point & examine it by contents dumping to file or screen... As I said above, VS can attach to a process without waiting for it to crash... Quote: There are ones I can sue to this day in fact because I have a patent on the idea... & your reason is really the only one I don't, and the fact that courts are hassles as well. Most are just small companies or single individuals like myself anyhow, not worth the pursuit of it. I'm no patent lawyer, but my guess is that if you haven't gone after them by now, an infingement suit probably wouldn't get very far in court... Quote: I am glad you did, I offer my points in rebuttal. Good discussion, no offense taken here as I am 'drinking in & digesting' your views... they make me think & give me ideas as well. Intelligent discussion should be cultivated wherever possible... I am convinced that a lot of the ignorant people in this world are that way because they don't try to be better... not because they've got some predisposition towards stupidity. Well, maybe - I don't think even laziness can explain many of the Darwin Awards...

Quote: I have never seen this "EncodeDate" function call, I may look into it when I find the time for it, provided Delphi has such a function... if not, I can find its analog in VB or C & port it. Just looked it up, I can use it... does not look too bad, but it will have to wait until next June rebuild release (I already have 8 things I have to add or improve already). Thanks for the tip! No problem! Quote: Quote: There are legitimate reasons for running debuggers / disassemblers, and immediately assuming that any such program is being used to hack your program is a great way to alienate users. Really? What reasons are those IF YOU HAVE YOUR OWN SOURCECODE?? Anti-virus programmers wouldn't be able to do anything without disassemblers. Or how about consultants working on old binaries, perhaps to convert it to a new machine (requires an ASM translation). Or, a moot reason now, but people trying to locate y2k bugs in programs whose source code is long gone. I know that these occasions are few and far between, but I am debating this from a philisophical side more than any. A disassembler itself is a legitimate tool. Just as a knife is used to cut things - but what the user chooses to cut is what classifies the tool. But as you say, the only time you would use a disassembler is when the source code is not available. And I would agree, this is most often (but not always) the case when you are trying to reverse engineer or hack someone else's work. One thing I just thought of, is that Visual Studio's debugger will disassemble a program if the source code is not available. Which means that it obviously has a disassembler... Would your program complain about having VS open? In fact, I think most debuggers can disassemble a running process. So this is in fact a quite legitimate use that you may conflict with. Quote: All the memory freeing programs out there? Just copies of MY work, it was the first of them all in RamCharge & used to make me ALOT OF MONEY... My commercial product market was killed by the copies. It's all about innovation man... when your product was first out there, it did well because you were the only one doing it, and it was a cool idea. But if other companies see that idea and think they can do it better/cheaper/whatever, then I say more power to them. And I seriously doubt that ANY of the RAM-freeing programs out there are a result of disassembling your program. Quote: A canard, a prevarication... b.s. used to placate the person being ripped off is what that is if you ask me a good 50% of the time is what. Let me make that IMCOMPLETE SAYING, complete (at least in my book): "The PAYING customer is always right!" Ah, but that BS is what makes happy customers => repeat customers, and word-of-mouth from happy customers is IMHO the best form of publicity. And of course the "paying" part is implicit, but there is a chance that one of your payed customers would need to use a disassembler, or an even better chance that one of your customers would be developing/debugging their own programs. Now, let me repeat, I am arguing this mostly from a philisophical point of view. (plus it's fun to be devil's advocate ) From an objective point of view - I think that even your "reboot the system" tactic is a bit much. That is intruding on areas of my computer that I didn't give permission for. And as I gave you a perfectly good reason why I might have a disassembler open (ie running a debugger), your action is unwarranted. If you still don't want to let people run your software in that scenario, fine, but just quit the program. When you start doing things without asking me, that is unethical behavior, and I am more likely to get annoyed and just find some other toolset. Whew. I can forsee this conversation getting way out of hand, but I guess we'll see what happens... ps - from my perspective this is all hypothetical anyway, as I have never used your tools, nor any tools like it. I am just imagining myself in situations where your choices might adversely affect my decision to buy your software...

Ok, a quick summary of how it works, is the system tests each element of a probe one-at-a-time by sending the big pulse down the element. Most transducers have between 128-256 elements. So there are a ton of relays to pick out the correct element during the test. And since you need some way to control the relays, the selection part is done with a digital circuit. So there's really no way to completely separate the digital from the analog. We do the standard stuff like separating ground planes and minimizing parallel traces in the layout, but there's still a whole lot of EMI from the pulse. Having said all that, it does still work really well, and the only time we have problems is when we're prototyping new adapters. Which is what I was doing the past few days was debugging a new board that was designed by a previous intern (and not well designed if you ask me ;( ) Now if you've got some idea for a different way to select the elements, please do tell! Hell, if it's good enough, I'll even give you the credit! BTW, the transducer is just a fancy name for the ultrasound probe. If you follow the link I gave, you'll see a small picture of the system -- the probe is on the cable coming off the top of the box. The length of the cable is fixed by the OEM manufacturers, but both the cable and the probe are well shielded. It's only where the pulse goes through the board that it has a chance to cause problems.