Windows Live OneCare 2.0 (Up to 3 Users) Review

Average Reviews:

(More customer reviews)I have been using Microsoft's Live OneCare System for about a year-and-a-half, and I went to the 2.0 version about three months ago. I've got to tell you though, I wasn't too happy about using it at first because of two factors: 1) Microsoft seemed to be linking a lot of things to this "Live" concept, and 2) The program seemed like it was making a lot of promises it couldn't keep. On the first matter, I still have some concerns; on the second matter, it has lived-up to its promises.
After almost a year, Microsoft upgraded my product to 2.0, and then when I added another computer to my LAN, I used one of the three licenses that came with the new version of OneCare to extend my HUB's subscription. And it did so without a problem. You will notice on the picture I uploaded from my individual computer (see customer images), that my subscription will renew in three days.
I don't know about you, but at work I've seen what not keeping-up with your virus protection and firewall protection can do to someone's computer. Mine hasn't been hit, but other's have and we use Norton's and McAfee at work with each computer set for automatic updates. At home, since I have a LAN, too, I wanted to make sure I didn't have similar problems, so for the past three years I tested several products, namely Norton's System Works, Norton's 360, e-Trust (Computer Associates), and OneCare.
Having used Norton's for over 12 years, I have been disappointed that they are doing less with their products, and I really became disenchanted when they didn't offer their firewall protection with System Works. Then, it seemed I couldn't find System Works, and I had to use 360, which was a mere shadow of System Works. It grated me that I had to buy one product, then buy their Internet Security, too. I, also, didn't think they were on top of the virus situation as much as they used to be. Then, there was an issue about renewals that did not go into effect when they should, and hour long waits for tech support to help correct the problem.
So, I tried e-Trust, and I didn't have any qualms about it, at first. At first it sent out e-mails, often times several times a day to update the software virus protection. Then, it went to an automatic check whenever you booted-up. Then, came the renewal. I had it on two machines and was successful only on one when it came to renewing my subscription. Now, batting 500 is great in the major leagues, but not when it comes to protecting my computer.
OneCare, though, has lived-up to their promises. At first I had it on one computer, and it performed a massive back-up that took all night (200 GB's... this was with version 1.0). Subsequent back-ups went quicker for only the new, or changed, files were updated. Adding 2.0 to other computers produced a back-up on individual computers much faster, 1 to 2 hours, depending on the computer, with amounts in the 100 GB range. With 2.0, I've been able to have one centralized back-up on an exterior HP Drive. I, also, have back-ups performed on each computer with various other drives: Seagate's FreeAgent, and Simple-Tech.
In total, I have four computers set-up on OneCare. Two are on the hard-wire, and two are on a WiFi connected to the hard-wire, with my laptop's back-up on another computers external drive (I added the laptop the day after writing this review, which gives me the 4th computer on the network.) One benefit I've seen of using OneCare is that the new computer's version usually recognizes the printers on the network, and it asks me if I want this computer to have access to it. If it doesn't, and I am not a networking whiz, I have just loaded the drivers for a printer that is on the network, and it then easily finds that printer and finishes out connecting the printer with that computer.
Once I set my schedule of the tasks for OneCare, I've let it do it's job, and I've had only one issue, and that's not a OneCare problem... On the iMac, I have both Mac OS X and XP Pro running. With XP Pro, I have OneCare installed. When XP Pro updates itself, it cannot download and install all updates, so OneCare gives me a "yellow," or caution warning. After manually having XP Pro on the iMac finish its download, everything goes "green," which to me is a great place to stop this review.
OneCare has greatly simplified my life. Version 2.0 is better than 1.0., and you can have from one to three computers covered with one subscription. Also, when I extended my subscription, it added the year onto my current subscription several months in advance without my having to call tech support to straighten out a problem. Regarding subscriptions, you have to have a "live.com" ID activating your initial, up to, 3 subscriptions (for me this was a "hotmail.com" address). If you have more computers to cover than 3, you will need a second "live.com" ID. Renewals are around $49.00 for one year's protection for up to three computers. Unlike some virus programs, like Norton's, you cannot uninstall OneCare and then install a newly-purchased, unused copy of OneCare, unless you install it under a different "live.com" ID. (BTW, I learned this the hard way, yet the Microsoft folks were quick at straightening it out (866-ONECARE).)
As the say on TV sometimes, I"m a happy camper, and I'd recommend this product to anyone wanting to protect one computer or several on a LAN. Be sure to check-out the pictures I uploaded to give you a better idea of what type of information you will receive from OneCare because that generally will tell you more than what I did about its capabilities.

Click Here to see more reviews about: Windows Live OneCare 2.0 (Up to 3 Users)

Click here for more information about Windows Live OneCare 2.0 (Up to 3 Users)

Read More...

Call of Duty: Black Ops Review

Average Reviews:

(More customer reviews)Want to know the word that sums this game up in a nutshell? I'll give it to you: Stutter.
I have a fairly midrange system consisting of an AMD X2 7750BE, Radeon 4850, and 4 gigs of RAM. Since my PC exceeds the recommended system requirements, one would assume that I would be able to run the game. Not a chance. Both the singleplayer and multiplayer aspects of the game are COMPLETELY DOMINATED by stutter, regardless of the fact that I've either turned down or turned off every imaginable graphics setting to alleviate the problem.
Confused about what stutter is? Imagine watching a movie and having it freeze for a half second every three seconds. The movie plays as smooth as silk; it just freezes a little every three seconds. Would be frustrating, wouldn't it? You'd probably get a headache around five minutes; maybe leave the movie after ten, wouldn't you? Well, imagine purchasing this game and playing it. That's what's gonna happen to you. Constant, constant stuttering to the point you want to wring the neck of whoever was in charge of QA at Treyarch.
Really, it's obvious that the team at Treyarch does not care about the PC demographic, because I find it hard to believe that such a fundamental problem would get past quality control. Maybe they don't even have quality control for their PC ports.
Think it's just me and every other idiot writing a 1-star review? Google "black ops stutter". You'll stand corrected.
I already bought the game, and now I'm...meh, "paying" for it. Don't be an idiot like me. Be an informed and smart consumer; do not purchase this game unless you enjoy playing half-baked, stutter-strewn videogames that don't deserve to be put on the market.
EDIT ON 11/14/2010
OK, I've bumped this game up to three stars from one because, as other people have noted both in comments and other reviews, Treyarch released a patch on Thursday that DID fix the stuttering problem.
And because the stuttering was fixed, I have had the opportunity to play through both multilplayer and singleplayer and can safely say that there is a phenomenal game that is buried underneath a myriad of technical problems (more, unfortunately, on that later). I don't want to dedicate a large portion of this edit to a review of everything the game has gotten right simply because such reviews already exist. I will say this though: This game has either met or exceeded the standards set by past shining entries of the Call of Duty franchise from a cinematic, gameplay, and narrative perspective.
However, from a technical standpoint, the game is still an utter failure. While playing through singleplayer, I made it a point to enable a value in my configuration file that allowed me to measure the amount of Frames Per Second (fps) my computer was rendering. For the people that don't know what fps is, fps is a measurement of how smoothly the game is running (laymen's explanation). A low fps means that the game will run more choppy, whereas a high fps means that the game will run more smoother. Anything below 30 is considered unplayable, anything around 30 is considered barely playable, and anything near or above to 60 is considered quite smooth.
With those definitions in mind, throughout the entire singleplayer campaign, my fps never exceeded 60, and it often dropped below 30, particularly when it mattered most: in firefights and heavy action sequences. If I were to give a range, it would be about 25-45.
It was very frustrating. I found myself aiming from the hip because I couldn't track targets correctly aimed down the sight, and hanging back rather than rushing into the action. There were times where there was a really cool cinematic event that was flat-out ruined by the fact that the game was running like a slideshow. And as with the stuttering problem, I encountered low fps regardless of my graphical settings. I tested on three levels what I'm about to say: There was no discernible gain or loss of fps between two sets of settings of 16x AA, 16x AF, and a 1920x1080 resolution, and 0x AA, 0x AF, and an 800x600 resolution. This is on a PC that can run any other Call of Duty game at over 100 fps.
These fps problems carry into multiplayer as well, the part of the game where its absolutely vital to have over 60fps. Since this part of the review is, I must confess, absolutely heartbreaking for me (I played cod4 professionally), permit me to sum it up with one statement: Unless you have a high-range machine, you'll always be playing at around 30-40 fps. For me, at least, that is unacceptable.
Amazon defines a 3 star review of a product as one that is simply "OK".Nearly everything about the game is fantastic; the intriguing narrative, the cinematic feel, the tight feeling of the controls, and the improved multilayer, among other things. Yet, despite all of the awesome elements of this game, the problems with low fps served to consistently shatter the fantasy, turning a heart-racing, breathtaking global trot into a walk that was simply OK.

Click Here to see more reviews about: Call of Duty: Black Ops

Putting Out the Hotspots of the Cold War Follow-up to 2009's blockbuster Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2, Call of Duty: Black Ops breaks new ground in the Call of Duty series and the video game industry at large by delving into the not-so cold conflicts of the Cold War.

Get 33% OFF

Click here for more information about Call of Duty: Black Ops

Read More...