I finally broke down and bought a copy of Directory Opus 9.0.0.9 after trying it for a week and loving it. Unfortunately, I found out the hard way it's not as perfect as it seems to be. I was backing up my huge cd-rips collection, which is arranged in a series of folders and sub-folders, and was very pleased to note that Directory Opus was copying them to my spare drive much quicker than Windows usually does. But then I found out that was just because it wasn't copying the sub-folders! The reason it was so much faster is that it was failing to copy about half the files. Isn't the ability to copy and move files what a file manager is supposed to be able to do? I got no error message, no way of knowing it didn't copy those files until I navigated to the folders themselves and noticed that all of the sub-folders were missing. At $75, it's an expensive file manager that can't even perform all the basic functions of a file manager.

This is one of the best media players out there. It's not only simple and unbloated, I've noticed a distinct improvement on the video rendering. Videos that are terribly pixellated when played with other video players look much smoother on MPC. It plays DVDs great and also handles most file formats without a hiccup. No spyware and it doesn't try to take over your computer either, unlike, say, WMP which tries to send anonymous data to MS even when you disable sending usage stats and automatically claims all file associations.

So... exactly how are you supposed to use it? The only .exe just flashes a DOS window in your face quick and then it's gone.

Waaaaaay over-rated and extremely annoying. When the trial ran out it opened a mini-window forced me to click "ok" to acknowledge that the trial had expired. This little window would NOT go away. I had to kill it with the task manager, which crashed explorer, of course.

I uninstalled it and am now finding that about a dozen other apps have suddenly become unregistered, forcing me to input my serial numbers again. I've been using those apps for a couple of years, have reinstalled them after reinstalling Windows, and never once had to re-input those serial numbers until immediately after uninstalling Alcohol 120%. What the hell is with that?! That's computer tampering and they have no right to do that.

During the install, it gave me the message that this program would time out on 4/30/2008. What kind of BS buggery is this?

This really is one of the better video players out there; videos that look pixellated with other players look much smoother with Fusion. Comes in both installer and zipped versions -- the zipped version is fully portable. I only wish it played more formats, but since MPC, among others, can handle all kinds of formats, I can't complain too much.

This is one of those apps that tries to take over your computer -- it sets itself as the default program to open pretty much every type of media file, from video to images. I set it to have no file associations in its options menu, and then I had to go over my hard drives and set the associations for about a dozen file types. Also, and this may seem like a minor nitpick, it changed all the media icons to its own and I couldn't restore the default without some finagling with an icon program. Plus, the one time I tried to get it to play a DVD, it spewed out an error message and shut down. After that, I'd had enough and uninstalled it.

Tried this recently and it is NOT freeware. This is a 30-day trial.

I was delighted with this program at first, so much that I installed it on both of my computers (both XP w/Sp2). Then it broke on the first one, requiring a reinstall. Now it just broke on the second one; when I tried to use it, I got an error message that it wasn't installed correctly, although it worked fine about 2 hours ago. If it happened on just one computer, I would think ti was just one of those things, but it happened on both in a fairly short time. It would be a great program if it would keep working like it's supposed to, but it obviously needs work.

It's in the freeware category, but it specifically says it's limited to a 30-day trial. Obviously, not freeware at all.

Works good & it's portable too; no installation, just run it, and it leaves no files behind after use.

6 was great, but DON'T get 7. When I first tried to install it gave me a message about a MS update and recommended I uninstall it. Well, since I slipstreamed it into my copy of Windows I can't do that, so I decided to go ahead anyway. It then opened a browser window with a tutorial on how to fix the problem, which was changing and recompiling a dll. When that was done (I followed the instructions exactly and checked twice to make sure I had it right), it was finally ready to install. Since they knew about the problem beforehand, why didn't they fix it themselves? End users shouldn't have to recompile system files to use your software, for Christ's sake.

After the installation finished it prompted me to reboot, naturally. Then I got a BSoD instead of a welcome screen. Yes, the BSoD still exists on XP. I hit reset to reboot. Same thing. I tried to start up in safe mode but it couldn't even get that far, giving me the same BSoD right after the boot screen.

Obviously, I'm going to have to reinstall Windows. Thank God for Knoppix! I'm posting this on Knoppix while recovering my files. I recommend Vistamizer; I wound up with a blank black boot screen after installing it, but no other damage and it otherwise worked very well. If the blank boot screen bothers you, just make a backup copy of your ntoskernel.exe and replace the new one with your original copy. If you do't know what I'm talking about, google "change Windows boot screen" for a guide (most boot screens that you download include a tutorial).

Ths works very well, but I did hit a small snag. My boot screen turned blank after installing this. This wouldn't be a problem for someone who uses their own boot screens, of course.

I had a copy of the original Neko '95 that I used to run a lot on Win 98. Unfortunately, even the compatibility wizard on XP couldn't make it work. Although this version is still called Neko 95/98, it's running just fine on my XP with SP 2. Sometimes I missed little Neko and I'm glad to have it back. And yes, this little program seems to be completely clean (no malware) and people who know me know that I'm rather paranoid about computer security.

I have an older copy of XP, pre-SP1. nLlite would be great for me since I want to install Windows to a 320 GB drive. But I'm afraid neither of the last two versions (currently 1.4) have worked when it came to slipstreaming SP2. I get an error message that my SP2 file is corrupt but I know it's not because it works perfectly on a Windows XP install on a 120 GB drive (which is the size limit on pre-SP2 versions of XP). I can only conclude that there is something wrong with nLite. I've tried it with 1.4 and the previous version and still have the same problem.

I guess I'll just have to install Windows to a 120 GB partition, install SP2 and then resize the partition again. Like I said, it would've been great if it had worked, since I could slipstream SP 2and all of the other needed updates and install it to a partition bigger than 120 GB.

After you try to use the software the 4th time, it wants you to register it. It says you can register at their website to get your code for free. You have to register at their website and when you finally get that done, there is no free code, only a page wanting you to buy their products. In other words, this is not freeware, but they are trying to trick you into thinking it is.

Install PeerGuardian, use any other torrent client to download a movie and observe how many hits you get. Now download the same file with utorent and watch your Peerguardian window -- you will see a definite increase in hits from the MPAA. You will get a large number of MPAA hits even if you're downloading a movie that's in the public domain like I did.

If you don't believe me, go to the PeerGuardian forum and do a search on utoorent or ask in their IRC channel; the most recent results will be people who've noticed this over the past few months. There was a big deal several months ago that they were selling out and they assured everyone that they weren't, but from what everyone is seeing, it looks like they did.

I know, I know, so many people love utorrent that this review will get flamed. But it's the truth, so you folks who are thinking of starting to use utorrent, be careful, no matter what your friends say.

At the date I'm writing this, Jetico is no longer freeware. It needs to be re-categorized. Furthermore, it failed the first leak test I tried on it, so it's not worth paying for anyway.

I don't know who rated this "poor" -- there are lots of beautiful wallpapers in here. Then again, I don't know why it's labelled "Vista" either.

This is the one that worked for me, although it still doesn't allow Windows to use themes that have only an msstyle file instead of a .theme file.

Before WinPatrol, I tested my system for spyware with Ad-Aware and Spybot every week. Each time I did, I inevitably found at least three instances of spyware, sometimes as many as ten.

I've been using WinPatrol for over a year now. I now check for spyware once a month and rarely find any at all; it's been over four months since any spyware was found on my system. WinPatrol is currently using 4,380k memory. More than a fair trade-off, I say.

False positives have proven to be more than occasional in my case -- it's been pretty much constant. Three times a day, or more, Antivir is alerting me about viruses in various files. I found that every one of them was a false positive with Google searches.

I've been using Antivir for two weeks, so I feel that I gave it a fair shot. I was told by another Softpedia reviewer that Antivir was rated higher even than Avast! free edition. I can see why; most people don't think to Google AV scan results unless their antivirus can't remove a reported threat. Avast! never reported a false positive in the year that I used it -- every alert proved genuine with a search. With it's oversensitivity, Antivir gives the illusion that it's more secure than other AVs because it's reporting so many false positives.

I have another complaint as well. Every time it updated a big nag screen to upgrade would pop up over the window I was working in, right in my face. So it's not really even freeware, it's nagware.

I'm going back to Avast! portable ClamWin. I just hope Avast! doesn't follow in their footsteps.

This font is set to allow only printing and previewing. In other words, you can't even use it in your Word .docs. Someone explain to me what exactly the point is to distribute a font that you can't even use, please.

If you're running Avast as of 10/20/06 it will detect a trojan in this program's directory immediately after the install is finished. I don't know if this is deliberate or if the softwareproducer's computer was infected with the trojan, but Ultimate CD-DVD Burner itself is infected.

I've been using this for almost two years. Simply does it what's supposed to do without problems.

If it's freeware why is it nagging me to purchase it? Obviously it's not freeware, this is shareware.

Besides that, this doesn't have even half the features that the free version (as im, it doesn't nag you to buy it) of WorldMachine does.

Avast! reports that this file has a trojan in it. So, just don't.

Was told about this by a freind on IRC so I decided to check it out. He was right. This is gorgeous for a free screensaver, far better than most. I scanned it with Avast and exeinfo, scanned my system with Ad-Aware after installing it, so I'm going to say it's very likely clean too.

Listed as freeware here, doesn't say anything about being shareware during the install, but after it's installed when you go to its settigs on your screensaver list it wants a registration key to uinlock it. That is shareware, not freeware.

It would be nice if you could have falsely-advertised programs removed from Softpedia.

As someone else noted, Avast may lack a few of the features of Norton's or McAffee's, but Avast is much better than either; better than most costly anti-virus programs, in fact. Uses far less memory too.

Now, I've heard Kaspersky's and NOD32 are the best you can buy, but Avast beats most other anti-virus programs, free or not. If you're willing to pay for AV software you might give them a try, but you won't find any others that are better than Avast.

Did nothing but crash on start up -- had to boot in safe mode in order to remove it. It broke a lot of other stuff in Windows too; can't switch users, can't use system restore, built-in firewall won't work, etc. Looks like I'm going have to reisntall Windows just to fix what it broke. Tried it on Windows XP Pro with SP 2.

Horrible software, don't try it.

The download link has been hijacked. Takes you to a page with a bunch of shareware programs they're trying to sell to you.

Confusing interface, application control makes you go through internet-accessing programs one by one, and most of all, NOT FREEWARE. This is a 14-day free trial.

Don't bother. You're better off with XP's firewall on it's own or ZoneAlarm.