chupacabraVS2: Yes, both at work and at home. But at home only because SUN hardware is too expensive.

BuilderQ: Of course. It makes screen scraping a lot easier if the site is valid. Or to write your own browser.

BuilderQ: And that surprises you? microsoft.com claims to be an HTML 4 site (didn't validate that claim though), which could mean it's not XHTML compliant Idem for apple.com. I checked google, and I quickly saw why it was neither valid HTML (any version) or XHTML (due to an unquoted attribute value containing a slash). yahoo.com misses a required attribute for a STYLE element. ibm.com is the only site I didn't spot an error within 10 seconds, and I don't want to bother running it through a validator. But a mistake in its 20k document could be present.

Summertop: Depends a bit on the terminology (and the type of modem). They do route in a certain way, but their primary purpose is to connect two different type networks (cable structure on one side, ethernet on the other). I'd consider it a router if it has its own TCP/IP stack. If it's just changing electronical signals (like old fashioned telephone modems do) I call it a modem. Whether or not it "offers protection" depends on what you mean by protection, and how it is configured. I don't use cable modems myself, but the ADSL modem I use at home can be configured to act as a NAT box, and to selectively let outside traffic through (firewall like functionality). However, I've set it up to be in "bridging" mode - it lets all traffic through. This might look less secure, but it isn't - it's more secure. In bridging mode, all traffic from the outside goes to my box - an attacker cannot target the modem, since, from the outside, it doesn't have an address. So if there's an exploit in the OS of the modem, my modem won't be effected. This of course means that my OS is subjectable to attacks, but my OS is open source, and I can freely and quickly apply patches. Or fix it myself if I'm really need to.

Summertop: Actually, my computer is behind a router so it doesn't really need a personal firewall.

Well, it's kind of hard to connect a box to the Internet without it being "behind" a router. What you probably mean is that you have configured your router (or let someone else do it) to act as a firewall.

Summertop: If you can...are you available for consulting?

I certainly can. I've been connecting boxes to the internet for a long time - and not always behind a firewall. In principle, I am available for consulting, but I don't do windows. Never did, never will.

As for your firewall.... if you can't configure your OS, can you configure your firewall? And for the one million dollar question, if Microsoft isn't able to write a secure OS, what good is a firewall written by the same company, and run on the same, non-secure, OS?

harley: Do you actually have a DVD writer in your PC? You can't write DVDs with an ordinary CD writer.

Backoff: Agreed on the fact it's not hard to set up a webserver yourself. However, a lot of ISPs don't allow users to run "servers", and some ISPs do actually block incoming traffic to port 80. Now, you could easily run a webserver on some other port, but it does lead to slightly more awkward URLs.

As for firewalls, if all you have is single box, you don't need a firewall if you have a properly configured OS. Don't run services listening to the outside world you don't need (and if you do need them, you have to make a hole in your firewall anyway). My boxes listen to, and accept traffic from, ports 22 (ssh), 25 (smtp), 53 (dns) and 80 (http). Nothing else. No firewall needed.

Rose:
I use 1024x768, but what good does that number to you? My browser size is smaller.