| I have RealOne installed on my older Win98se computer. I
wouldn't
| install it in my newer XP computer. It's true RealOne infects
your
| system and is very hard to dis-infect if you decide to remove
it.
| If I had to install RealOne, I would use Total Uninstall to
monitor
| the installation. At least if you decide to remove RealOne at a
later
| time. You should hopefully be able to undo most of what RealOne
| installed, by using Total Uninstall to remove it. Then of
course a
| manual search through the registry to remove whatever residue
from
| RealOne is left over. Of course the best method to avoid this
problem
| would be to just not install RealOne, in the first place. As to
Real
| Alternative I had installed it and after going to NetFlix to
see if I
| could watch any of their free movies. Real Alternative wouldn't
work
| for me. Perhaps I needeed to download a codec. Anyway I ended
up
| deleting Real Alternative too. Perhaps JetAudio does a better
job. I
| never tried that one.
| --
|
http://night2000.blogspot.com/
Thanks for this. You were more concise than I was.
Let me add that the Real Alternative file set consists of the
complete codec as it existed at the time that the set was
created, plus some spyware components (check out your file named
"cookies.txt" within the Real Alternative directory ("folder"):
what do you see there: Surprise!!! You're on Candid Camera!).
Real is always monkeying with their code, so it is possible that
they added a bell or a whistle for video after the RA set was
created. Content providers may "improve" their offerings, too, so
that they're no longer compatible with earlier codecs (just my
analysis, which may not use the correct terminology or
understanding). My preference for content providers and coders is
that I'd wish they'd hang back from adopting the latest and
greatest tools in order to place more emphasis on backward
compatibility. Don't we get so tired of the constant obsoleting
of perfectly good machines, operating systems, etc.? If coders
would resist the urge to be the first on the block to jump on the
bandwagon, we could all have a little peace and calmness around
here for a change. Maybe there would be more slack time during
which bugs could be worked out and thoughtful improvements
implemented instead of blindly racing full steam ahead into
Iraqs!
Media Player Classic (the foremost "plugged in" front end for RA)
is the project of one lone coder in Hungary. I think that it's an
OK job. As is often the case with freeware, its documentation is
really scanty. I wouldn't mind sending him a donation, but he's
using a service for this that takes -half- of what we send him.
And I can't find any way whatsoever to discuss this with him.
There's no way to contact the guy that works!
About jetAudio, I'm impressed with the interface. People cobbling
up media players often think that they're ever oh-so-cool by
making up cute interfaces that are non-standard and very hard to
operate (in other words, trendy and dreadful at the human
engineering part; this is called "Style over Substance").
JetAudio is slicker than Media Player Classic, and I can coexist
with the interface better than most. However, it is the product
of a small corporation, and they've got to pay the bills somehow.
That somehow is not transparent. On the spyware newsgroup, at
least one person has claimed that it contains spyware, and he
named the particular file that holds your viewing history. I
wonder if there's any other freeware out there that works with
the RA file set; it'd be worth a try.
Keeping an older computer for internet use, it being a
"sacrificial" installation allowed to withstand punishment, is an
idea that I've batted around more than once with a DP-expert
friend. At his place of work, they've banned streaming media
altogether because of general malfeasance plus the enormous
bandwidth drained off a large system by a few connected people.
Your method may be a good practical way to keep one's main
computer from being messed up. I like the idea. The main "choke"
rate in streaming is not imposed by the computer, but rather by
what the pipe can carry between the machines. Thus, I don't see
the need for hardware speediness for internet use. Do you agree?
You wanna play computer games, that's a different story. You
wanna use ultra-bloated software like Microsoft Word, with its
gargantua-mega-humungous work files, you may need the speed of a
gamer's machine just to plow through all the crap. But for web
and mail, why not put a depreciated decent machine to work just
for this. Agreed?
Richard