Posts by rowdybadger18

Yeah, I know it works for you—it works for me on machines running Windows 7 and Windows 10 too. But Windows XP is acting up. It’s tripping over SSL certificates for some reason I can't quite pin down.

Look, they are double quotes, I'm not crazy. For some reason, they're showing up as single quotes in this warning window. The addresses—this, that and anything else using HTTPS that links back to The Pirate Bay. 😁

Looking for CrystalDiskInfo.

It won't work. Exactly..

Like this? It’s broken again.

Honestly, every single site using SSL that I’ve stumbled upon works just fine. The only outlier is TPB. How do I deal with this self-signed certificate issue—basically, how do I bypass it? This PC isn't mine and I couldn't care less if bypassing this opens up some vulnerabilities for hackers; I just need TPB to work.

I know Firefox works—it’s got its own ways of handling SSL. But I wouldn't touch it with a ten-foot pole.😬

See, Robert Rodriguez2, that’s actually a smart move from you for once. I'm going to give it a shot.

EDIT - Well, Robert Rodriguez2, turns out you were wrong. The BIOS time is spot on.

A stripped-down version of Windows XP.

I gave it a shot. It didn't work. 😬 There's definitely some bullshit going on with the certificates and Windows XP.

Hey everyone.

After spending what felt like an eternity installing and configuring Windows XP, just when I thought I was finally done—a new headache popped up. Some sites using the HTTPS protocol simply won't load. For instance, The Pirate Bay isn't working on either Internet Explorer or Chrome. I have Avast installed, but even after disabling it, nothing changed. In Chrome, I get this error whenever I try to access The Pirate Bay. Everything works perfectly fine on my laptop and my desktop running Windows. I even tried turning off the firewall, but no luck there.

Anyone know what's causing this?

It’s all coordinated with the government. You don't honestly think the switch to H.264 is some coincidence or, heaven forbid, based on technical necessity? It’s just a scheme to launder as much cash as possible through broadcasting gear and receivers funded by taxpayer coupons.

bluerider622 said:Actually, we're talking about the UHD realm here. Standard HD still relies on H.264.

Not necessarily. Word is, OiV is planning to migrate DVB-T over to DVB-T2 using the HEVC codec sometime soon.

It’s still on shaky ground right now. That doesn't mean HEVC won't eventually overtake H.264 as the standard codec.

Right now, HEVC is really only making waves in the digital broadcast space. 😬

ironcyclist58 said:There’s a better version (HEVC), but YouTube won't touch it.

Even quad-core processors struggle with HEVC. It’s just not ready for prime time yet.

What more do you want? 450 megabytes in 40 minutes is a solid result, especially when you're dealing with HD or higher resolutions.

Andrew Peterson2 said:It’s better to compress the file size during processing rather than sitting around waiting for a massive upload.

Wrong. If the technical quality of a video is garbage, nobody is going to watch it. It's that simple.

No pain, no gain. There isn't a single high-quality video out there with a decent runtime that doesn't take up a massive amount of space. According to this calculator, if your friend is on the absolute bottom-tier internet plan from Comcast, uploading 450 megabytes to YouTube's servers would take about two hours. Sure, you could drop the resolution and the bitrate, which would shrink the file. Go ask your friend what speed he actually has his software set to.

You’ve always got to grab an opportunity for self-promotion when it hits you. 🤣

Burn Hiren's BootCD and use it to run some HDD tests.