Windows XP and Internet Connection Sharing

1 Reply

I’ve just spent 2 hours helping a friend to get Internet Connection Sharing working on Windows XP, and we still haven’t got it done!

He’s just got a Xbox 360 and he’s trying to use ICS to connect the Xbox to his computer via ethernet. In the end we just gave up and I told him to just move his router so he can plug his Xbox directly into the router rather than having to go through the PC and the dreaded Windows Firewall.

But things like this just explain why I don’t use Windows XP anymore (with exception to the very odd occasion). It’s just a pain – with Vista it’s just one click. XP is just not user friendly and its really complicated compared to Vista.

Ok Vista has it’s issues, but come on, why do people hate it so much? Ever since I got my Vista laptop I can’t live without it, and I wish people would just give it a chance.

I’m not going to bother explaining the several procedures we attempted to get it working because we’ll be here forever. But if you’re going to try to connect your Xbox to the internet via your PC… just don’t bother. Get a wireless adapter for the Xbox – I mean go through this and I think you’ll be a little more convinced the £50 is well worth the money. Or at worst, just connect the Xbox direct to your router. Or get Vista :).

Just don’t use XP. If you’re still using XP, I really recommend you take another look at Vista – it’s got a hell of a lot better since launch.

Executive of iPlayer suggests ISPs charge for high quality iPlayer

Leave a Reply

The executive in charge of the BBC iPlayer service has suggested that ISPs charge an extra flat rate charge of £10 per month to watch high quality streams of the iPlayer service. (Source)

In my opinion, I think that this isn’t particularly fair. If we are paying for bandwidth and speeds to watch this, why the hell are we being expected to pay for downloading (or streaming) content which we are allowed to in the terms of our ISP’s fair use policy.

Why should we pay even more? ISPs shouldnt charge us for bandwidth we already get in the terms of the contract. If you have 8MB per second broadband (or pay for this in the terms of your contract, even if you don’t physically get it) with say 40GB bandwidth usage per month (most “unlimited” ISPs allow that amount) then you shouldnt have to pay for any more, I think. A couple of high quality streams from iPlayer in a month won’t even get you vaguely close to 40GB. Perhaps, if you are on a more limited contract with perhaps 5GB usage, ISPs may well have to charge you, but most people have more usage than that.

iPlayer claim that currently the streams they run at the moment are 700kbps, but in 3 months time they may be up to 1.5mbps. Why? Do we really need that? iPlayer streams are perfectly good now, even on a large TV. It seems utterly pointless.

Besides, if you want high quality, just download the video. They tend to be very good quality at still a relatively low file size.

It just doesn’t make sense. ISPs are saying that the internet is slowing down because people use iPlayer too much and that hogs all the bandwidth. But it shouldnt. If we pay for a deal that theoretically should cope with the bandwidth that iPlayer uses, why are they complaining? Who’s to blame?

We already pay TV liscenses (well you do if you have a TV – or should be – but you don’t have to if you don’t have a TV in the house and don’t watch live TV), broadband costs, and equipement costs. The last thing people want is for ISPs to be charging us rediculous amounts of money for bandwidth usage we should already have.

It doesn’t make any sense at all to me. What are your thoughts?

Radio could go digital in 2017?

Leave a Reply

According to http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7792083.stm (BBC News), there are reports that radio could be 100% digital in 2017. That means that in 9 years time, there may be no analogue signal at all.

We’re already in the process of the digital switchover for televison, whic is supposed to be finished by 2012.

In my opinion, I think it’s quite good that we’re switching to digital radio. It does have its problems – I mean signal isn’t exactly brilliant; especially in rural areas – but otherwise I love my DAB radio. There are tonnes of stations (half of them I wouldn’t even think about listening to), some of which are good, and where signal is good it is very crisp and clear. I am hoping to get a pocket DAB radio sometime since they seem to be good for long journeys, and it will be nice when phone companies can develop the technology to have built-in DAB radios. Most phones I see usually only have FM radios and on some 3G radios there is online radio.

What do you think? Do you still use DM radio or are you a DAB addict? Do you think a switchover is a good idea?

Windows Live Essentials 2009 Beta 2

Leave a Reply

Well Windows Live Essentials Beta 2 was released yesterday, at last. They’ve done a hell of a lot of work and so far it seems to have paid off.

Windows Live Messenger

They’ve changed the interface quite a lot. It’s a bit more user friendly now, and a few new visual effects make life easier. The pop-up alerts (eg for someone signing in) are now somewhat transparrent and look that little bit more classy. They’ve also made warnings such as “[contact] is Busy and may not reply” removable and the warnings only appear for a few seconds. That’s good thinking. On top of that it is generally a lot faster and it isn’t stamped with Beta everywhere anymore.

Windows Live Mail

Very much the same – upgraded, cleaner interface which is much easier to use. Few bug fixes and other niggly bits. They have replace ‘Send and Receive’ with ‘Sync’.

Other

The rest of the software suite has changed slightly. Overall, its cleaner and quicker making it much more user friendly and usable. 

If you’re using Beta 1 at the moment you should have already been alerted that beta 2 is out, but if not, grab it here: http://download.live.com/

Give it a go and post what you think in the now online comments section below.