macro virus locks computer
jessica schulman
downloads, before the download finishes, the screen freezes into many
different colors and patterns, and the computer completely locks up. it
has to be restarted manually.
this has happened several times. when the computer is restarted,
norton;s antivirus tells us that a word macro virus has been found, its
been different ones.
the computer in question does not have word installed on it. it reads
word files through the wordpad accessory. how do i stop getting these
viruses. if it were word, i would delete the normal.dot, but what do i
do in this situation?
Thor
have the macro functions necessary for the virus to activate. I suspect that Mcafee is in
error, and you may have other problems. I would start with finding an updated video
driver, if you are getting video corruption.
..
jessica schulman <comput...@banet.net> wrote in message
news:37704D2A...@banet.net...
Plato
>
> my friend is running windows 98. he downloads from aol. when aol
> downloads, before the download finishes, the screen freezes into many
> different colors and patterns, and the computer completely locks up. it
> has to be restarted manually.
> this has happened several times. when the computer is restarted,
> norton;s antivirus tells us that a word macro virus has been found, its
> been different ones.
> the computer in question does not have word installed on it. it reads
> word files through the wordpad accessory. how do i stop getting these
> viruses. if it were word, i would delete the normal.dot, but what do i
> do in this situation?
I'd run F-Prot first in that situation after I booted from a clean
bootdisk
Plato
>
> Unless you use MS Word, you can't get MS Word macro viruses. The wordpad program does
unless the cheapo MS macro virii search for .doc extensions, than even
Write in 3.X may
be affected if you saved as a .doc file [guessing]
Thor
program. The virus is not self executable. It relies upon the macro function calls in MS
Word to do all of it's work. The macro virus is merely the "instructions" for MS Word to
execute. Since Wordpad has no macro abilities, and is basically just a souped up text
editor, the document can safely be opened, because it totally ignores the embedded macros
in the document, rather than executing them as MS Word does.
..
Plato <25@62.4> wrote in message news:37709ABF.5282@62.4...
Atlacatl
You may have word macro virii in some of your documents Jessica, but
as Thor has explained you need MS Word and its macro functionality
to activate these "nasties". So until you clean these documents you
will continue to get that message. As to the video thing well listen to
Thor.
How to get rid of these nasties? get a Virus Scanner.
F-prot (www.complex.is) and Mcafee (www.nai.com)
is my preffered cocktail...
godd luck
Thor wrote in message ...
>Unless you use MS Word, you can't get MS Word macro viruses. The wordpad
program does not
>have the macro functions necessary for the virus to activate. I suspect
that Mcafee is in
>error, and you may have other problems. I would start with finding an
updated video
>driver, if you are getting video corruption.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>..
>jessica schulman <comput...@banet.net> wrote in message
>news:37704D2A...@banet.net...
Thor
..
Atlacatl <atla...@elsalvador.sv> wrote in message
news:7krf0s$8k8$1...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net...
Stevie Stevie
origin of it. It's not exactly Latin (viri) and it's not exactly English
(viruses). Just what the hell is it? Must be a virus!!!
In article <7krf0s$8k8$1...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>,
atla...@elsalvador.sv says...
>
> ... virii ...
>
James Liles
<comput...@banet.net> wrote:
:->my friend is running windows 98. he downloads from aol. when aol
:->downloads, before the download finishes, the screen freezes into many
:->different colors and patterns, and the computer completely locks up. it
:->has to be restarted manually.
:->this has happened several times. when the computer is restarted,
:->norton;s antivirus tells us that a word macro virus has been found, its
:->been different ones.
:->the computer in question does not have word installed on it. it reads
:->word files through the wordpad accessory. how do i stop getting these
:->viruses. if it were word, i would delete the normal.dot, but what do i
:->do in this situation?
It might be worth getting a second opinion from a different antivirus
program.
Plato mentioned F-Prot.
There is a free web based one available at
http://housecall.antivirus.com
It might be worth going there and testing the computer.
As Thor mentioned, if they don't have word, then they can't really get
the macro viruses.
It is still possible to have infected files on the computer.
I would recommend cleaning those or deleting them.
It could cause a lot of problems if an infected file got sent to
someone else by mistake.
I hope that this helps. 8-).
Windows 98 help at
http://www.ac.net/~lilesj
Atlacatl
I come from a bichemistry background and the plural
for Virus in science is Virii. I use it b/c that's the only
way I know how. In computer "talk" I've seen Viruses
and Virii. I can't tell you what's right, but would you say
you have computer mouses or mice?
Stevie Stevie wrote in message ...
Ken Blake
> Stevie,
>
> I come from a bichemistry background and the plural
> for Virus in science is Virii. I use it b/c that's the
only
> way I know how. In computer "talk" I've seen Viruses
> and Virii. I can't tell you what's right, but would you
say
> you have computer mouses or mice?
I don't know what biochemists say, but if they say "virii,"
it's an ignorant usage. Stevie is exactly right--the English
plural is "viruses" and the Latin plural is "viri."
As far as I'm concerned, the only way to say it "viruses."
--
Ken Blake
Please reply to the newsgroup.
Ben Quick
sheep or fish. You don't have 2 sheeps or 12 fishes, is 2 sheep and 12 fish
and lotsa virii
That's what I thought anyway
Atlacatl wrote in message <7l01ac$p93$1...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>...
>Stevie,
>
>I come from a bichemistry background and the plural
>for Virus in science is Virii. I use it b/c that's the only
>way I know how. In computer "talk" I've seen Viruses
>and Virii. I can't tell you what's right, but would you say
>you have computer mouses or mice?
>
>
Atlacatl
Every freaking one of your posts is in some fashion
is a diminutive to some else's opinion. Tell you what...
if you don't have anything constructive to say well you
know the rest. This isn't the place to learn english
grammar or spelling so if you feel good about yourself saying viruses
then knock yourself out. You choose to call scientists (or everyone
else for that matter) "ignorant" because they don't agree with
your pseudo-god (there's only one God) skills well then you should
look at that little "thingy" called computer that some "ignorant"
scientists made.
If it makes you feel accomplished then I will say viruses and I will
spread your teachings to all my friends so that they may
also tell their friends and so on...geeeezzzz man
p.s. don't correct my grammar/spelling this isn't my thesis
Ken Blake wrote in message <7l0hme$53u$1...@nnrp03.primenet.com>...
>Atlacatl <atla...@elsalvador.sv> wrote in message
>news:7l01ac$p93$1...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net...
>
>> Stevie,
>>
>> I come from a bichemistry background and the plural
>> for Virus in science is Virii. I use it b/c that's the
>only
>> way I know how. In computer "talk" I've seen Viruses
>> and Virii. I can't tell you what's right, but would you
>say
>> you have computer mouses or mice?
>
>
>I don't know what biochemists say, but if they say "virii,"
>it's an ignorant usage. Stevie is exactly right--the English
>plural is "viruses" and the Latin plural is "viri."
>
>As far as I'm concerned, the only way to say it "viruses."
>
>--
> Ken Blake
> Please reply to the newsgroup.
>
>
>
Andreas Heib
> Atlacatl <atla...@elsalvador.sv> wrote
> > I come from a bichemistry background and the plural
> > for Virus in science is Virii. I use it b/c that's the
> > only way I know how. In computer "talk" I've seen Viruses
> > and Virii.
> I don't know what biochemists say, but if they say "virii,"
> it's an ignorant usage. Stevie is exactly right--the English
> plural is "viruses" and the Latin plural is "viri."
To quote Atlacatl: "I come from a Latin teacher background" ;-)
So I *must* correct you, Ken:
The Latin plural is "vira".
"virus, -i" is a neuter noun.
"viri" is a) the genitivum of "virus" and b) the plural of "vir"
(man, here: men).
> As far as I'm concerned, the only way to say it "viruses."
I agree as far as Computer "vira" are meant.
--
ah ©¿©
Please post any response to the newsgroups.
MS Knowledge Base http://support.microsoft.com/support/a.asp?M=S
Stevie Stevie
radii and conclude that the plural of virus must look similar and call it
"virii". The only problem is there is no "i" the ending part of virus as
in radius. Adding an extra "i" and call it "virii" is incorrect.
In article <7l0hme$53u$1...@nnrp03.primenet.com>, nob...@home.com says...
> Atlacatl <atla...@elsalvador.sv> wrote in message
> news:7l01ac$p93$1...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net...
>
> > Stevie,
> >
> > I come from a bichemistry background and the plural
> > for Virus in science is Virii. I use it b/c that's the
> only
> > way I know how. In computer "talk" I've seen Viruses
> > and Virii. I can't tell you what's right, but would you
> say
> > you have computer mouses or mice?
>
>
> I don't know what biochemists say, but if they say "virii,"
> it's an ignorant usage. Stevie is exactly right--the English
> plural is "viruses" and the Latin plural is "viri."
>
Plato
>
> I think what happened is many people recall that the plural of radius is
> radii and conclude that the plural of virus must look similar and call it
> "virii". The only problem is there is no "i" the ending part of virus as
> in radius. Adding an extra "i" and call it "virii" is incorrect.
if your date cancels on you tonight you might want to argue that point
in a warez group for some adDiTIoNal phun
Ken Blake
news:3774ecb4...@nntp.ix.netcom.com...
> On Fri, 25 Jun 1999 16:37:29 -0400, "Atlacatl"
> <atla...@elsalvador.sv> wrote:
>
> >ok pal...
> >Every freaking one of your posts is in some fashion
> >is a diminutive to some else's opinion. Tell you what...
> >if you don't have anything constructive to say well you
> >know the rest. This isn't the place to learn english
> >grammar or spelling so if you feel good about yourself
saying viruses
> >then knock yourself out. You choose to call scientists
(or everyone
> >else for that matter) "ignorant" because they don't
agree with
> >your pseudo-god (there's only one God) skills well then
you should
> >look at that little "thingy" called computer that some
"ignorant"
> >scientists made.
> >If it makes you feel accomplished then I will say viruses
and I will
> >spread your teachings to all my friends so that they may
> >also tell their friends and so on...geeeezzzz man
> >
> >p.s. don't correct my grammar/spelling this isn't my
thesis
> >
>
> Ken is correct. He usually is.
Sometimes. But not this time.
> When he is not, he will be the first to
> admit it.
As I just did. Thanks for the support anyway.
Ken Blake
news:7l0qen$7if$4...@newsread.do.de.uu.net...
> Ken Blake <nob...@home.com> wrote
>
> > Atlacatl <atla...@elsalvador.sv> wrote
>
> > > I come from a bichemistry background and the plural
> > > for Virus in science is Virii. I use it b/c that's the
> > > only way I know how. In computer "talk" I've seen
Viruses
> > > and Virii.
>
> > I don't know what biochemists say, but if they say
"virii,"
> > it's an ignorant usage. Stevie is exactly right--the
English
> > plural is "viruses" and the Latin plural is "viri."
>
> To quote Atlacatl: "I come from a Latin teacher
background" ;-)
> So I *must* correct you, Ken:
> The Latin plural is "vira".
> "virus, -i" is a neuter noun.
> "viri" is a) the genitivum of "virus" and b) the plural
of "vir"
> (man, here: men).
Serves me right for not looking it up. I had *assumed* that
it was second declension masculine.
Correction accepted. Thanks for setting me straight.
--
Ken Blake
Please reply to the newsgroup.
>
> > As far as I'm concerned, the only way to say it
"viruses."
>
Stevie Stevie
people that a thick crust has already formed on me long ago and,
consequently, I'm very much flame-retardant. :-)
In article <37741B47.4A4D@62.4>, 25@62.4 says...
Plato
>
> Sorry, Plato, I forgot to mention that I have been flamed by enough
> people that a thick crust has already formed on me long ago and,
> consequently, I'm very much flame-retardant. :-)
it was a very polite flame nonetheless you cant argue with that.
Plato
>
> Sorry to disagree, Ken, but as far as the correct English plural, it
> is still viruses, and always has been. Check the OED or
> even a lowly Websters unabridged for confirmation. The proper latin
> plural is not under discussion here.
please note that a word may actually be an integral part of a language
for 10 years or more before it pops up in a dictionary, as dictionaries
are a 20/20 hindsight reference, they don't dictate the language, they
respond to it ...
Ken Blake
news:377420ec...@nntp.ix.netcom.com...
> On Fri, 25 Jun 1999 17:10:44 -0700, "Ken Blake"
<nob...@home.com>
plural, it
> is still viruses, and always has been. Check the OED or
> even a lowly Websters unabridged for confirmation. The
proper latin
> plural is not under discussion here.
No even a hint of a disagreement from me on the English
plural. But I did screw up the Latin.
My days as a latin student were 45 years ago. And I wasn't
much good at it then, either. Sigh.
Stevie Stevie
:-)
In article <37745225.4766@62.4>, 25@62.4 says...
Plato
>
> "Polite flame"? That gets my vote for being the oxymoron of the day.
yep
its like a candle flame that you can pass your finger through without
getting burned
Sherrie Gentry
both right. The word Viruses is acceptable in both as is the Latin
Virii. To see the word Viruses in print, check out any good virus
software company such as Symantec, etc. or Webster's Collegiate
Dictionary.
On Fri, 25 Jun 1999 11:27:28 -0700, "Ken Blake" <nob...@home.com>
wrote:
>Atlacatl <atla...@elsalvador.sv> wrote in message
>news:7l01ac$p93$1...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net...
>
>> Stevie,
>>
>> I come from a bichemistry background and the plural
>> for Virus in science is Virii. I use it b/c that's the
>only
>> way I know how. In computer "talk" I've seen Viruses
>> and Virii. I can't tell you what's right, but would you
>say
>> you have computer mouses or mice?
>
>
>I don't know what biochemists say, but if they say "virii,"
>it's an ignorant usage. Stevie is exactly right--the English
>plural is "viruses" and the Latin plural is "viri."
>
>As far as I'm concerned, the only way to say it "viruses."
>
>--
> Ken Blake
> Please reply to the newsgroup.
>
>
>
>> Stevie Stevie wrote in message ...
>> >I keep seeing this word, but for the life of me I can't
>figure out the
>> >origin of it. It's not exactly Latin (viri) and it's not
>exactly English
>> >(viruses). Just what the hell is it? Must be a virus!!!
>> >
>> >In article <7krf0s$8k8$1...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>,
>> >atla...@elsalvador.sv says...
>> >>
>> >> ... virii ...
>> >>
>> >
>>
>>
>
>
Remove "nospam" from address to reply by e-mail.
Plato
>
> What you are referring to is words that are newly coined becoming part
> of the lexicon. Slang and marketing gimmicks don't make it into
> dictionaries because they are usually temporary. A word has to be
> around for a while before it establishes itself a a permanent
> addition. Some Slang words and vulgarities eventually make it into
> tyhe dictionary if they last beyond the "fad" stage. We are talking
> about a word that has been around since before you were born. OED is
> the standard bearer for the english language. They are not so much
> about hindsight as they are about being well considered and
> thoughtful. 8^)>
Seems like I might have broken the golden rule of battle: eg. Only start
a fight if you know you can win :)
or, yes I agree somewhat, the word has been around for centuries, but
has it been around in the USA common man culture for centuries? no! It
may have been used in the biomedical field but that may be too narrow
for inclusion into Websters. If millions of computer users now start
using it as they have since 1990 when I first started seeing in on the
internet and local BBS's, it may be in Websters sooner than you think.
god I hope your in a good mood when you read this. As you can tell, I
dont mind wearing my heart on my sleeve ...