• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Orion13622

  • Rank
  1. No, toss AVG and Avast out the door. Sure they are free, but remember this... you get what you pay for. Since I'm a 20+ year IT Consultant, not only do I use Malwarebytes, I use Clamwin, and SuperAntiSpyware Portable to get rid of infected files. Now, as far as day to day AV, I trust none other than Vipre Antivirus, by GFI. It's government certified, and I've never once had any infections since. Sure, its going to cost you 49.95 per PC, but it has a small footprint, active scanning, and will stop web pages from loading if it thinks they have any viruses embedded in them. Great program.
  2. Actually, most people don't know this, but Windows NT had 2 versions. 4.x was the most commonly known, but it had a previous version, 3.51. Again, had Workstation and Server editions, but Workstation was the most common. Many people preferred to use NT 4 workstation rather than 3.11 for Workgroups. When Windows NOT-ME was released (I hear all you laughing, and you all know why...lol) Windows 2000 came out. Truth be told, 2000 Professional, Server, Advanced Server, and Datacenter Server all came out, then ME was released, due to the general public crying like little kids because their last release was 98SE (which had a major bug to begin with after it's RTM, of which they sent a seperate CD or had you download the fix). Yes sir, good times...I can remember all the way back to DOS 2.1, and DeskView with QEMM386 as your memory manager. - - - Updated - - - 2 worst mistakes Microsoft admittedly made were Windows ME and Windows Vista. 7 is what Vista was supposed to be, in the sense of stability and operating. It ranks right up there with the many years of stability XP Professional Edition gave not only the people at home, but the Enterprise Businesses as well, and today 90% of the Business Enterprise is still running XP. Costs to do the upgrade are far more expensive than leaving well enough alone. - - - Updated - - - That's because Windows 3.11 was not a true operating system, it required MS-DOS and it was mearly a shell that sat on top of DOS. Much in the same respect as Linux operates. Its real look is that of a command prompt driven system, but you can get many different desktop environments that interface with it as a shell. Ubuntu happens to be just one in a couple hundred. KDE, GNOME, are more other common ones...
  3. I'm getting the same thing here, with the exception of the fact that I copied my saves from the saves folder from KSP 0.90 into the new folder for 1.0. If you notice, the patch program seems to do the same thing, just hangs there. Yes I have all my AV turned off, so there's no firewall, etc. So in theory, KSP has full access to my broadband connection. Sure I can run KSP.exe without a problem, but it seems that a few days ago, this also affected the launcher from 0.90, and I am wondering if it has to do with perhaps certain plug ins (mods like Mechjeb, or anything else). My best guess, is that it may be downloading data, as I watch my network traffic, but at a slow rate, since everyone is no doubt wanting to get their hands on 1.0 to play with it. Anyhow, the get around for me to play at the moment is to launch the KSP.exe file, not the launcher... (BTW, why does KSP take up damn near 4GB of memory????)
  4. Hello everyone, myself as well, just paid for the .90 version, came from the trial, love it. Already have incorperated the Orion logo from Nasa into my flags, as I've been a big follower of this last launch. Doing this is a lot like being up there. Yes, although I'm 40, as a kid being an astronaut was my dream. I too am also from Ohio, and can't wait to see the 1.0 version release. Hopefully they will do something with the aeronautics of the game once you enter the atmosphere to make it a bit more, realistic. Right now, every plane is like pushing or pulling a brick with a motor, and fails to respond correctly... as for the rockets, loving every minute of it.
  5. You guys rock!!! Wow, this is going to blow my nephew's mind. Now all those hours of making rockets, we can just connect and fly! Installed the Mech Jeb, and man that's awesome too. No longer am I wearing out #2 pencils trying to figure out the burn time to get a perfect circular orbit... Thanks again you guys, millions. BTW, swapped over to Ubuntu, to play 0.90 and seems like there is no lag when it comes to the system, and it's only using 47% of my memory total, instead of the rediculous 90-95% in Windows 7. (Both running in 64bit mode... and no crashes in Linux yet...). Can anyone tell me (besides the fact that Windows is a memory leaking hog) why this is??? My system is as follows: Toshiba Satellite P775-S7100 Intel i5 Processor Intel 3000 HD Graphics 6 GB DDR3 memory (In Windows Mode) Windows 7 Home Premium Edition SP1 750GB HDD (Toshiba) Swap File is 6GB (In Ubuntu Mode on secondary ATA Controller) Ubuntu 14.04 LTS 320GB Seagate Momentus Am running dual monitors (Laptop display, native at 1600x900 (16:9) and Samsung 17" (In Win7, this display is 1280x1024, in Ubuntu it's at 1600x1200 at 4:3) Many thanks again, you all are great, and fly safe!
  6. Ok, so I've been playing KSP for a little bit now, and absolutely love it. Not only on my own, but it allows me to spend both a fun time, and educational one at that with my nephew. So one afternoon, both of us (my nephew and I) were building a command module, and then we decided we wanted to build a space station and he and I both had the same thought. Why does the program make you start off with a command capsule before you can build, and secondly, if you build a really cool capsule, why can't you load it, and then load say, a delta IV booster set to connect to your already saved project. In other words, lets look at it like this. 1. Spend time building a cool Orion replica service module and saved it. 2. In order to launch it, I have to build the boosters on top of the Orion replica. Option here: What if I just want to build the boosters so I can attach them to another neat item I want to put into space? Like a shuttle, or cargo, etc. So, let's say you have the boosters configured, when you take away the command module, the rest of the items on the screen are now useless, unless you put another command module on the current screen, and you can't load something else, because it wipes out what is currently there. I'm hoping this makes sense. Basically this is what I was wanting to do. 1. Create space station and save it. 2. Create Orion service module and save it. 3. Create Delta IV booster set and save it. Now, when I want to launch either one, here's what I'd like to do. 1. Load Orion Service Module 2. Load Delta IV boosters, and attach to previously loaded Orion Module. 3. Launch vehicle. Same thing with space station. 1. Load space station 2. Load rockets to put station in orbit 3. Launch station into orbit. Can you guys do this? Would make the game a lot more fun, instead of having to load so many parts to get things going. Many thanks, and if this has already been discussed, I am sorry, but as I said, I'm new to the game and am loving it. Also, why in the world does the game require so much memory (last count, it was holding on to 5 gigs of memory, and eating up my swap file rapidly...bringing the game to almost a stand still at times...) Many thanks, and fly safe everyone. Hank:)