PC antivirus software question
Steve Barker DLT
Trend micro pc-cillin for a few years, but it seems the 2008 version is not
great. My local pc hardware guy agrees and recommends Kaspersky 2008
Internet Security. Anyone heard of or used this one?
thanks for all your input.
steve
sa...@dog.com
What is "not so great" about what you are using?
Smarty
news:smj3a45i02ovh2d4r...@4ax.com...
Get and read the latest issue of Consumer Reports. They did an extensive
comparison and rated many antivirus suites both free and for sale. They
liked BitDefender very much, were surprisingly down on Norton/Symantec (the
suite I use) and also down on Trend PCCillin, the product I previously used
but found way too slow and buggy.
Smarty
sa...@dog.com
wrote:
Those who rely on Consumer Reports for reliable, honest, and accurate
analysis of ANYTHIING, deserve what they get.
J.H. Holliday
news:j1l3a49rk6d1pssnd...@4ax.com...
Why do you say that? For many years, most folks have found much of their
info pretty accurate...the magazine's knee-jerk liberal belief that
government regulation is the answer to all marketplace problems
notwithstanding...
David Nebenzahl
> On Tue, 12 Aug 2008 14:09:58 -0400, "Smarty" <nob...@nobody.com>
> wrote:
>
>><sa...@dog.com> wrote in message
>>news:smj3a45i02ovh2d4r...@4ax.com...
>>
>>> On Tue, 12 Aug 2008 12:53:18 -0500, "Steve Barker DLT"
>>> <railph...@always.hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I'm a wondering what everyone is using for AV software. I've
>>>> been using Trend micro pc-cillin for a few years, but it seems
>>>> the 2008 version is not great. My local pc hardware guy agrees
>>>> and recommends Kaspersky 2008 Internet Security. Anyone heard
>>>> of or used this one?
>>>>
>>>>thanks for all your input.
>>>
>>> What is "not so great" about what you are using?
>>
>>Get and read the latest issue of Consumer Reports. They did an extensive
>>comparison and rated many antivirus suites both free and for sale. They
>>liked BitDefender very much, were surprisingly down on Norton/Symantec (the
>>suite I use) and also down on Trend PCCillin, the product I previously used
>>but found way too slow and buggy.
>
> Those who rely on Consumer Reports for reliable, honest, and accurate
> analysis of ANYTHIING, deserve what they get.
And why is that? Please explain. As I understand it, they actually
*test* the products that they compare, which is more than can be said
for a lot of the idle speculators one hears from, oh, I don't know, in
forums like this ...
--
"Wikipedia ... it reminds me ... of dogs barking idiotically through
endless nights. It is so bad that a sort of grandeur creeps into it.
It drags itself out of the dark abyss of pish, and crawls insanely up
the topmost pinnacle of posh. It is rumble and bumble. It is flap and
doodle. It is balder and dash."
- With apologies to H. L. Mencken
Bob F
"Steve Barker DLT" <railph...@always.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:vpedndXiMP2SUzzV...@giganews.com...
AVG free is doing the job fine for me.
IGot2P
What gives you that impression of them? If they had advertising, which
they don't, I might have a tendency to agree but without the advertising
I find them to be pretty "straight up" and reliable.
Now, let's hear your reasoning.
Don
Seth Goodman
> I'm a wondering what everyone is using for AV software. I've been using
> Trend micro pc-cillin for a few years, but it seems the 2008 version is not
> great. My local pc hardware guy agrees and recommends Kaspersky 2008
> Internet Security. Anyone heard of or used this one?
I personally prefer Eset Smart Security (www.eset.com), but Kaspersky
would be my second choice. Check around for bargains on Kaspersky -
IIRC, Best Buy (or was it Circuit City?) had it on sale for $40 this
week.
--
Seth Goodman
Seth Goodman
before you buy!
--
Seth Goodman
Tony
> Another two cents - most AV suites have free trials - *definitely* try
> before you buy!
>
if it is doing a good job -- or doing anything?
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
badgolferman
I second Eset NOD32 as the best. If you want free AV then consider
Antivir which is very good also.
sa...@dog.com
The root problem is that their testing "methods" are completely
laughable.
If you want to believe they have a clue, then by all means, follow
them wherever they go.
Seth Goodman
"Try before you buy" to:
a) As you say, check if you like the interface,
b) make sure it doesn't grind your system to a halt,
c) make sure there are no incompatibilities with software on your
system.
As to how well (or if) it's working - you can start with an eicar test
(http://www.eicar.org/anti_virus_test_file.htm) and GRC's leaktest
(http://www.grc.com/lt/leaktest.htm). There are more advanced tests you
can try, too, though I don't have any bookmarks handy to cite.
I also suggest reading the av-comparatives web site:
http://www.av-comparatives.org/
--
Seth Goodman
J. Clarke
Experience. Every time I've trusted Consumer Reports I've gotten
burned.
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
mm
wrote:
Me too. They still support win98 also.
It can be hard, I think, to find the free version on their website.
One has to get past 2 or 3 screens that offer the paid version, and
iirc one has to click on a link that isn't named "free version" but
something else altogether. But it's there.
John Grabowski
"Steve Barker DLT" <railph...@always.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:vpedndXiMP2SUzzV...@giganews.com...
> Trend micro pc-cillin for a few years, but it seems the 2008 version is
> not great. My local pc hardware guy agrees and recommends Kaspersky 2008
> Internet Security. Anyone heard of or used this one?
>
>
I use McAfee and a program called CyberScrub to get rid of those nasty
cookies and other downloads that clog up the system. It also cleans out the
history folder so no one can see where you have been. It can also wipe out
your hard drive if your not careful. They have a free full version trial.
mm
>Seth Goodman wrote:
>> Another two cents - most AV suites have free trials - *definitely* try
>> before you buy!
>>
>Other than whether or not you like the user interface, how do you know
>if it is doing a good job -- or doing anything?
There is a webpage where you can dl a harmless file that looks to
antivirus programs like a virus. Now if only I remembered it's name.
Read all of this before acting.
Google is my friend. It's eicar.xxx It seems to be available at
http://www.eicar.org/anti_virus_test_file.htm This is hard to see
on my computer, because I have to scroll to the right a little bit to
see the scroll bar INSIDE the pane, and then scroll down.
This might be a better link. http://www.rexswain.com/eicar.html I was
very timid about these files because How do I know this isn't a trick
to get me to dl viruses!!
A few years ago I used them and everything was fine, and my AV alerted
on each one. Now for some reason, I'm not getting any alerts!!! OK,
after a couple minutes, I got the alerts. I don't know why it took so
long. I'm using an 800MHz computer now, probably faster than the
first time I tried this. Anyhow, I think both pages are ok.
The file lengths are probably important
eicar.com 68 Bytes
eicar.com.txt 68 Bytes
eicar_com.zip 184 Bytes
eicarcom2.zip 308 Bytes
As long as they are this short, there's no room for actual virus
stuff, just this string that all AV programs list as virus-like.
-- end read all of this --
I eliminate most viruses from email by skipping emails longer than
40K. Maybe this doesn't work so well with all email programs, but with
Eudora, I can look at the subject and headers of emails longer than
40K and decide if I want to dl the rest of them. Usually the answer
is no, except for one newsletter I get, and one poster to a mailing
list who uses some sort of software that makes all his emails 10 times
as large as everyone else's.
Neither Norton nor AVG has ever alerted on a web-based virus, and I'm
still not sure where they are and what they're like if they exist at
all.
mm
wrote:
>
>The file lengths are probably important
>eicar.com 68 Bytes
The Rexwain version of this (text snipped) was 70 bytes long, and when
I had the AVG anti-virus program repair this file, it deleted all 70
bytes, because they are the string that the anti-virus programs alert
on, and it left me with a 0 byte file.
Maybe I have the prefeerences set a little differently on this
installation of AVG from what I used before.
Paul Franklin
I've used Avast (free for home use) for years. www.avast.com
They sell corporate versions and advance personal versions, but the
basic antvirus is free for home use. Their statement is that the only
way to win against the bad guys, or at least keep up, is if every
computer has good antivirus, and that's why they offer the basic
version for free. I think that's an admirable position, and if it
also gets them paying customers...well everyone's got to eat.
No one's ever heard of it, but it works well for me. Updates at least
once a day, hasn't caused any compatibility problems, and doesn't bog
my system. Hard to judge effectiveness, but after using it on three
always on, always connected systems for years, no infections yet.
I gave Norton and Mcaffe the boot years ago
My $.02
Paul F.
J.H. Holliday
news:70q3a4dsqsvgnp6ej...@4ax.com...
And what about guys who post broad, sweeping generalizations-- just their
opinion, really-- and glaringly don't support them with any data ;-)
Kenneth
<railph...@always.hotmail.com> wrote:
Hi Steve,
I have used Kaspersky AV on our seven systems for the last
four years or so. I could not be happier with the product.
I would not even consider any Norton, or Symantec product
for a few reasons:
Prior to KAV, we had Norton.
One day, I noticed that one of our systems had a flag
telling us that our NAV license was about to expire. I
clicked to run though an automatic renewal process.
Within a day or two, the same thing happened on a few of our
other machines, but only after renewing three or four of
them did I notice a problem:
The warning was actually telling us that the licenses were
to expire in thirty days, but when we renewed, we received
and automatically installed a license that started on the
day of the installation.
In other words, Symantec had found a way to "eat" a month of
the license.
It was extremely sleazy to say the least.
But that is only part of the problem:
I called Symantec and requested a full refund on our
purchases. After some hassling, we got the refund.
But then, removing the products proved to be all but
impossible despite using the many "removal" tools Symantec
provides.
When the software had been partially removed we started
getting frequent error messages relating to a Norton
Anti-Worm tool that we had never purchased, and had never
installed.
Still, Symantec could not provide a way to remove all traces
of their products.
So, I would certainly not purchase one of their products
again.
I should also add that (at least in the form we purchase)
Kaspersky is very modest in cost when compared to other
similar products.
All the best,
--
Kenneth
If you email... Please remove the "SPAMLESS."
Kurt Ullman
Kenneth <use...@soleSPAMLESSassociates.com> wrote:
>
> I called Symantec and requested a full refund on our
> purchases. After some hassling, we got the refund.
>
>
I stopped using NAV about 5-6 years ago when whichever version I
was using was no longer supported. Okay, no biggie. But then when I
bought and "installed" the new version, the new version would not work
because some of the new version conflicted with the old version. Okay,
small biggie but still mainly annoying. So I used the old version's
"uninstall" then fired up the new version again only to get most of the
previous conflicts. Called Symantec and spent about 4 hours (nearly 7
total) taking out bits and pieces by hand from all over the hard drive.
That was the end of my having ANYTHING to do with any software company
with an "s" in the name (g).
<stirring things up>
BTW I am VERY happy with my new AV software. OS X!
</stirring things up>
sa...@dog.com
Just because I don't feel obligated to spoon feed you, doesn't mean
what I said is not valid.
Consumer reports has made an art form out of comparing items based on
data points that are often of no consequence, while ignoring features
and elements of performance that are vital to a real evaluation. They
also often make GLARING errors that expose their shoddy practices.
No, I'm not going to sit here for hours typing up a synopsis of all
their many gaffsgaffs.
Here's one described briefly:
Two VCR's - one gets top rating and one gets bottom. They praise
certain features on the top rated unit that they casitgate on the
bottom rated unit. Top rated has a much better picture, faster rewind,
and so on compared to the bottiom rated unit. Only problem is....
drumroll... They are the exact same unit internally with slightly
altered cosmetics and a different brand name on the front. They even
use the same service literature and part numbers for servicing. They
are built in the same factory on the same assembly line.
Consumer Reports writer asks as he punches in for work, "Okay, what am
I an expert on today?"
aemeijers
antivirus, around 35 bucks/year for a 3-machine license on their web
site. I can legally use Symantec (aka Norton) from work, for free, but
after several problems with it fighting with windows, I said the hell
with it and went elsewhere. Between the PCTools and switching to
Firefox, no infections in close to a year (knock on plastic).
--
aem sends...
aemeijers
when it comes to cars and electronics, forget it. Anybody else remember
their silly rollover stunt with those stupid outriggers that raised the
mini-SUV's CG a foot or so? Like articles in newspapers, whenever they
write about something that I actually have some expertise on or
witnessed, I find myself saying 'that ain't right...' And their
reliability ratings are meaningless, like any self-selected polling pool.
--
aem sends...
Walter R.
system like a lot of other AV programs do.
--
Walter
www.rationality.net
-
"Steve Barker DLT" <railph...@always.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:vpedndXiMP2SUzzV...@giganews.com...
Ralph Mowery
"mm" <NOPSAM...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:80r3a4tbscms87sfh...@4ax.com...
I have been using the free version of AVG for probably 10 years. Seems to
work well enough for me. It is hard to find the free version, but I do use
it on Win 98 and Win XP systems.
I always thought most anything Norton's as a virus of somekind. Same thing
with AOL.
J. Clarke
My experience has been that antivirus programs cause far more problems
than the virii that they are supposed to be protecting us against.
Personally I run a standalone firewall with a software firewall behind
it, don't download executables from unknown sites, and never use the
administrator account unless I'm doing something that requires
administrator access, and I've not had a virus on any of my computers
in 20 years. The virus threat is vastly overrated, mostly due to the
marketing efforts of the producers of antivirus software.
Frank
<railphoto...@always.hotmail.com> wrote:
> I'm a wondering what everyone is using for AV software. I've been using
> Trend micro pc-cillin for a few years, but it seems the 2008 version is not
> great. My local pc hardware guy agrees and recommends Kaspersky 2008
> Internet Security. Anyone heard of or used this one?
>
> thanks for all your input.
>
I use McAfee as it is free from my isp but it is a resource hog. I
had used Norton which is not quite as intrusive. I hear Avast is a
pretty good program and it's free.
Frank
DGDevin
> Get and read the latest issue of Consumer Reports. They did an
> extensive comparison and rated many antivirus suites both free and
> for sale. They liked BitDefender very much, were surprisingly down on
> Norton/Symantec (the suite I use) and also down on Trend PCCillin,
> the product I previously used but found way too slow and buggy.
>
> Smarty
Norton and McAfee have both received a lot of bad press in recent years over
their buggy, intrusive software and very poor customer service. I've heard
so many horror stories that I would never use either one again. Norton has
been trying to clean up their act lately but I see no reason to go back to
using their products when there are superior alternatives available.
Kaspersky is highly rated by lots of IT types. I recommend the free home
version of Avast! which I got after reading a lot of positive reviews also
by IT-savvy folks. You can't beat free, at least if it works properly, and
Avast! has worked well for me.
DGDevin
> The root problem is that their testing "methods" are completely
> laughable.
Says who? Care to offer documented examples? They've screwed up from time
to time but they've also admitted it when it's happened. I'd certainly put
more faith in them than in some magazine that relies on advertising revenue
to survive and thus is highly unlikely to give any product a bad review.
> If you want to believe they have a clue, then by all means, follow
> them wherever they go.
Aside from their product testing the feedback they get from consumers re:
breakdowns and repair costs etc. seems useful. CR might not be perfect but
in a world where most magazines and websites are little better than shills
for companies with products to sell I still consider CR a valuable resource.
sa...@dog.com
You sound like you work at Consumer Reports! LOL
I knew a guy who chain smoked unfiltered camels from age 13 to age 93
when he was ht by a car crossing the street. He didn't get lung
cancer, so I guess there is no connection between cigarettes and lung
cancer! He proved it.
sa...@dog.com
I have this bridge I need to sell quickly at a bargain price. You seem
like a smart fella...
sa...@dog.com
ps.
You misspelled VIRUSES. There is no such word as virii in any
language, including dead ones.
J. Clarke
I see. So how many viruses has your antivirus program protected you
from in the past 20 years and how did they get at your system?
J. Clarke
<plonk>
mm
wrote:
>I use free Avast, too.
I was going to use Avast, but when I started to install it, it said
"AVAST", so I stopped.
I tried to find AVG=free on the Grisoft site and it's gotten harder
and harder. They have upgrade from free, and free trial, and I know
plain old free is in there somewhere, but I couldnt' find it.
I eventually searched on 'avg free' download, and that worked
better.
For one:
http://www.download.com/AVG-Anti-Virus-Free-Edition/3000-2239_4-10320142.html
Steve Barker DLT
re-install.
s
#2. something's going on and i can't go to www.reunion.com anymore.
s
<sa...@dog.com> wrote in message
news:smj3a45i02ovh2d4r...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 12 Aug 2008 12:53:18 -0500, "Steve Barker DLT"
> <railph...@always.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>I'm a wondering what everyone is using for AV software. I've been using
>>Trend micro pc-cillin for a few years, but it seems the 2008 version is
>>not
>>great. My local pc hardware guy agrees and recommends Kaspersky 2008
>>Internet Security. Anyone heard of or used this one?
>>
>>
>>thanks for all your input.
>>
>>steve
>>
>
Steve Barker DLT
ago. They create their own problems to fix to justify their existance.
s
"Smarty" <nob...@nobody.com> wrote in message
news:g7sjln$shc$1...@registered.motzarella.org...
> <sa...@dog.com> wrote in message
> news:smj3a45i02ovh2d4r...@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 12 Aug 2008 12:53:18 -0500, "Steve Barker DLT"
>> <railph...@always.hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>I'm a wondering what everyone is using for AV software. I've been using
>>>Trend micro pc-cillin for a few years, but it seems the 2008 version is
>>>not
>>>great. My local pc hardware guy agrees and recommends Kaspersky 2008
>>>Internet Security. Anyone heard of or used this one?
>>>
>>>
>>>thanks for all your input.
>>>
>>>steve
>>>
>>
>> What is "not so great" about what you are using?
>>
>
HeyBub
> I'm a wondering what everyone is using for AV software. I've been
> using Trend micro pc-cillin for a few years, but it seems the 2008
> version is not great. My local pc hardware guy agrees and recommends
> Kaspersky 2008 Internet Security. Anyone heard of or used this one?
>
>
The unanimity on Microsoft newsgroups (i.e.
microsoft.public.windowsxp.general) is that there are three things wrong
with Norton, any one of which would cause it to be a bad choice.
1. It is a resource hog, consuming from 5-15% of CPU cycles, far more than
other AV programs.
2. It interferes with legitimate installations without telling you. This
results in programs not working or working incorrectly.
3. Norton is the barnacle of the software world. After you remove it with
Add/Remove, you have to download Symantec's Sooper-Sekret removal tool to
pry out left-over bits. Then you have to manually scrub the Registry for any
remaining spoor.
Chris
> I'm a wondering what everyone is using for AV software. I've been using
> Trend micro pc-cillin for a few years, but it seems the 2008 version is not
> great. My local pc hardware guy agrees and recommends Kaspersky 2008
> Internet Security. Anyone heard of or used this one?
>
>
>
> steve
>
>
deal. Has a free trial but after that will cost almost $60/year for 3
PCs, I think. However has more than just anti-virus protection.
Or switch to Linux and get rid of the virus treat for ever :>)
Ron
> "mm" <NOPSAMmm2...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
>
> news:80r3a4tbscms87sfh...@4ax.com...
>
>
>
> > On Tue, 12 Aug 2008 12:12:26 -0700, "Bob F" <bobnos...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> >>"Steve Barker DLT" <railphoto...@always.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >>news:vpedndXiMP2SUzzV...@giganews.com...
> >>> I'm a wondering what everyone is using for AV software. I've been using
> >>> Trend
> >>> micro pc-cillin for a few years, but it seems the 2008 version is not
> >>> great.
> >>> My local pc hardware guy agrees and recommends Kaspersky 2008 Internet
> >>> Security. Anyone heard of or used this one?
>
> >>> thanks for all your input.
>
> >>AVG free is doing the job fine for me.
>
> > Me too. They still support win98 also.
>
> > It can be hard, I think, to find the free version on their website.
> > One has to get past 2 or 3 screens that offer the paid version, and
> > iirc one has to click on a link that isn't named "free version" but
> > something else altogether. But it's there.
>
> I have been using the free version of AVG for probably 10 years. Seems to
> work well enough for me. It is hard to find the free version, but I do use
> it on Win 98 and Win XP systems.
>
Very first hit on Google "avg 8 free"
DGDevin
> I have this bridge I need to sell quickly at a bargain price. You seem
> like a smart fella...
Ah, in other words you got nothin', about what I figured.
larry moe 'n curly
Steve Barker DLT wrote:
> I'm a wondering what everyone is using for AV software. I've been using
> Trend micro pc-cillin for a few years, but it seems the 2008 version is not
> great. My local pc hardware guy agrees and recommends Kaspersky 2008
> Internet Security. Anyone heard of or used this one?
Kaspersky has done well in about every review, including the one in
the Sept. 2008 Consumer Reports, where it ranked second, overall,
scoring 78 points, compared to 80 points for two programs that tied
for first place -- BitDefender (best antivirus) and McAfee (best for
anti-spam). Oddly, CR didn't list two of the really popular free anti-
virus programs, like Avast! and AVG, maybe because new versions came
out after publication.
A few months ago, some malware caused my computer to slow to a crawl
under XP Home. Norton and Avast! detected nothing, AVG 7 found
problems but couldn't fix them at all, while free online scans by
BitDefender and Kaspersky detected and partially fixed the problem but
required the addition of SmithFraudFix and another specialty fix to
permanently wipe the malware. I don't remember what the online
versions of Trend and PC Pitstop did.
larry moe 'n curly
sa...@dog.com wrote:
> Those who rely on Consumer Reports for reliable, honest, and accurate
> analysis of ANYTHIING, deserve what they get.
> The root problem is that their testing "methods" are completely
> laughable.
> Consumer reports has made an art form out of comparing items based on
> data points that are often of no consequence,
Such as?
> while ignoring features and elements of performance
> that are vital to a real evaluation.
Such as?
> They also often make GLARING errors that expose their shoddy practices.
The child safety seat test was one example, and the problem turned out
to be their failure to specify exactly how the contract crash testing
lab was to do a test, resulting in much higher crash forces than
desired. But they went into great detail about their error and had
the tests done over.
> Here's one described briefly:
>
> Two VCR's - one gets top rating and one gets bottom. They praise
> certain features on the top rated unit that they casitgate on the
> bottom rated unit. Top rated has a much better picture, faster rewind,
> and so on compared to the bottiom rated unit. Only problem is....
> drumroll... They are the exact same unit internally with slightly
> altered cosmetics and a different brand name on the front. They even
> use the same service literature and part numbers for servicing. They
> are built in the same factory on the same assembly line.
What are the brands and model numbers? Several years ago, some people
thought that two Panasonic and Quasar (both brands of Matsushita
Electric Co.) VCRs were internally identical, but in reality that
particular Quasar was completely different and was about the only
design unique to Quasar.
> Consumer Reports writer asks as he punches in for work, "Okay, what am
> I an expert on today?"
They have many engineers on their testing staff, and most of them are
specialists in the products they test.
J. Clarke
> sa...@dog.com wrote:
>
>> Those who rely on Consumer Reports for reliable, honest, and
>> accurate
>> analysis of ANYTHIING, deserve what they get.
>
>> The root problem is that their testing "methods" are completely
>> laughable.
>
>> Consumer reports has made an art form out of comparing items based
>> on
>> data points that are often of no consequence,
>
> Such as?
>
>> while ignoring features and elements of performance
>> that are vital to a real evaluation.
>
> Such as?
>
>> They also often make GLARING errors that expose their shoddy
>> practices.
>
> The child safety seat test was one example, and the problem turned
> out
> to be their failure to specify exactly how the contract crash
> testing
> lab was to do a test, resulting in much higher crash forces than
> desired. But they went into great detail about their error and had
> the tests done over.
Now how many blunders have they _not_ discovered? And why didn't they
double check the results _before_ they got called on it? Sloppy,
sloppy procedure.
>> Here's one described briefly:
>>
>> Two VCR's - one gets top rating and one gets bottom. They praise
>> certain features on the top rated unit that they casitgate on the
>> bottom rated unit. Top rated has a much better picture, faster
>> rewind, and so on compared to the bottiom rated unit. Only problem
>> is.... drumroll... They are the exact same unit internally with
>> slightly altered cosmetics and a different brand name on the front.
>> They even use the same service literature and part numbers for
>> servicing. They are built in the same factory on the same assembly
>> line.
>
> What are the brands and model numbers? Several years ago, some
> people
> thought that two Panasonic and Quasar (both brands of Matsushita
> Electric Co.) VCRs were internally identical, but in reality that
> particular Quasar was completely different and was about the only
> design unique to Quasar.
>
>> Consumer Reports writer asks as he punches in for work, "Okay, what
>> am I an expert on today?"
>
> They have many engineers on their testing staff, and most of them
> are
> specialists in the products they test.
Names and backgrounds please.
And another example--their 2006 "best places to buy" failed to even
notice B&H Photo or newegg.com.
sa...@dog.com
<jclarke...@cox.net> wrote:
My system? I currently oversee a citywide network including
government, schools, Utilities, and Libraries. Lots of Servers of many
flavors and about 3500 desktops. This is my "retirement" job.
I've seen more than just a few invasions. There are many ways a virus
can enter a system, even with a firewall in place. An example is that
for schools and libraries to function, students and the public save
their work on thumb drives they bring from home. They can bring
trouble from home, and no firewall can prevent it. A good anti-virus
can stop it, and prevent spreading it. It can also keep a log of what
gets caught, so we know that viruses DO get into systems. Once one
desktop is infected, it "can" spread to the other 3500 desktops on the
same network. That's why we also run virus protection on servers. One
desktop with a virus can bring a large piece of the network to it's
knees by a flood of packets sucking up bandwidth.
sa...@dog.com
No, I've got this bridge. Someone else has nothing.
sa...@dog.com
I was lead technician for an electronics service firm with 80
technicians at the time that bogus review ran. The two VCR's in the
example I gave were identical except for cosmetics. I haven't worked
in the field for many years, but I still hold my license, with an
unlimited rating.
They also rated the stock car stereo in an AMC automobile (a low line
OEM Clarion) over Kenwood, Alpine, Pioneer and a half dozen other
brands of autosound equipment that were ALL superior to their top
pick.
>>
>>> Consumer Reports writer asks as he punches in for work, "Okay, what
>>> am I an expert on today?"
>>
>> They have many engineers on their testing staff, and most of them
>> are
>> specialists in the products they test.
I was privileged to tour their testing facility in Yonkers. It was
pretty impressive, but... They are generalists, not specialists, for
the most part.
>
>Names and backgrounds please.
>
>And another example--their 2006 "best places to buy" failed to even
>notice B&H Photo or newegg.com.
>
>--
Sorry to respond indirectly through someone else's ost, but I didn't
get the original post by larrymoecurly to which I am responding.
HeyBub
> If you have more than one Windows machine try the Microsoft Live
> OneCare deal. Has a free trial but after that will cost almost $60/year
> for 3 PCs, I think. However has more than just anti-virus
> protection.
Good advice.
>
> Or switch to Linux and get rid of the virus treat for ever :>)
Right. Switch to a knock-off of a 40-year old operating system designed by a
money-losing division of your local telephone company and enhanced my geeks
who think the DOS command line interface is insufficiently cryptic.
By so doing, you might raise the percentage of desktops using Linux from its
0.86% level to something beyond the "barely detectable" designation.
Smarty
news:avv3a49mu44ujdk78...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 12 Aug 2008 17:17:31 -0400, "J.H. Holliday" <doc@ok> wrote:
>
>><sa...@dog.com> wrote in message
>>> On Tue, 12 Aug 2008 11:36:58 -0700, David Nebenzahl
>>> <nob...@but.us.chickens> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Get and read the latest issue of Consumer Reports. They did an
>>>>>>extensive
>>>>>>comparison and rated many antivirus suites both free and for sale.
>>>>>>They
>>>>>>liked BitDefender very much, were surprisingly down on Norton/Symantec
>>>>>>(the
>>>>>>suite I use) and also down on Trend PCCillin, the product I previously
>>>>>>used
>>>>>>but found way too slow and buggy.
>>>>>
>>>>> analysis of ANYTHIING, deserve what they get.
>>>>
>>>>*test* the products that they compare, which is more than can be said
>>>>for a lot of the idle speculators one hears from, oh, I don't know, in
>>>>forums like this ...
>>>
>>> The root problem is that their testing "methods" are completely
>>> laughable.
>>>
>>> them wherever they go.
>>>
>>
>>opinion, really-- and glaringly don't support them with any data ;-)
>>
>
> Just because I don't feel obligated to spoon feed you, doesn't mean
> what I said is not valid.
>
> Consumer reports has made an art form out of comparing items based on
> and elements of performance that are vital to a real evaluation. They
> also often make GLARING errors that expose their shoddy practices.
>
> their many gaffsgaffs.
>
> Here's one described briefly:
>
> Two VCR's - one gets top rating and one gets bottom. They praise
> certain features on the top rated unit that they casitgate on the
> bottom rated unit. Top rated has a much better picture, faster rewind,
> and so on compared to the bottiom rated unit. Only problem is....
> drumroll... They are the exact same unit internally with slightly
> altered cosmetics and a different brand name on the front. They even
> use the same service literature and part numbers for servicing. They
> are built in the same factory on the same assembly line.
>
>
> I an expert on today?"
>
Salty Dog,
I. for one, put quite a bit of value on Consumer Reports and their reviews.
Since I have been working as a electrical engineer in hardware design since
the 1960s, and have been subscribing to their publication since the early
1970s, I have found their testing approach to be, for virtually all things I
am professionally aware of, scientifically sound, not ":completely
laughable" as you state. Their journalism is also fair and balanced. They
have a substantial testing organization staffed by many engineers, a large
set of laboratories, and a total willingness to go to outside testing firms
including the one I was employed by, to have specific testing done which
exceeds their in-house staff or facilities.
I do not always agree with their outcomes, and also do not always agree with
their metrics or discriminants, since I may personally put a much higher
value on some feature or performance than they do. Such is the nature of
making comparisons. I do, however, find their results often correlate with
my own experiences, and have used them as a buying guide for many major
purchases.
Dismissing Consumer Reports entirely is a very narrow and unreasonably
dismissive attitude in my opinion. For antivirus software, I put a great
deal more value in their opinions than I do of those computer publications
which often have their own advertising agendas, and favor products which pay
their bills. PC Magazine and others would have you believe that Trend Micro
PC-Cillin is a great product, yet both me and the original poster found out
exactly the opposite after spending $50 or $60.
Smarty
Smarty
news:Vvnok.553$Mh5...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> J. Clarke wrote:
>> IGot2P wrote:
>>> sa...@dog.com wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 12 Aug 2008 14:09:58 -0400, "Smarty" <nob...@nobody.com>
>>>>>> On Tue, 12 Aug 2008 12:53:18 -0500, "Steve Barker DLT"
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm a wondering what everyone is using for AV software. I've
>>>>>>> been using Trend micro pc-cillin for a few years, but it seems
>>>>>>> the 2008 version is not
>>>>>>> great. My local pc hardware guy agrees and recommends Kaspersky
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> thanks for all your input.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> steve
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> What is "not so great" about what you are using?
>>>>>>
>>>>> extensive comparison and rated many antivirus suites both free and
>>>>> for sale. They liked BitDefender very much, were surprisingly down
>>>>> on Norton/Symantec (the suite I use) and also down on Trend
>>>>> PCCillin, the product I previously used but found way too slow and
>>>>> buggy.
>>>>>
>>>> Those who rely on Consumer Reports for reliable, honest, and accurate
>>>> analysis of ANYTHIING, deserve what they get.
>>> they don't, I might have a tendency to agree but without the
>>> advertising I find them to be pretty "straight up" and reliable.
>>>
>>> Now, let's hear your reasoning.
>>
>> Experience. Every time I've trusted Consumer Reports I've gotten burned.
>>
And their
> reliability ratings are meaningless, like any self-selected polling pool.
>
> --
> aem sends...
I entirely disagree. They gather annual reliability data from 100's of
thousands of readers through a 4 to 6 page survey form, and publish an
analysis of the results. You may call their ratings "meaningless", but I
will take them any day as a lot better reference than any other source I am
aware of. Can you name a better database of reliability info for consumer
products? For that matter, can you name "ANY" other source of reliability
data on consumer items other than your typical anecdotal opinions of a
salesperson or neighbor?
Smarty
J. Clarke
You mean besides J.D. Power & Associates?
sa...@dog.com
sa...@dog.com
wrote:
So, in absense of a good and valid source for this information from
somewhere else, you choose to rely on an extremely faulty one,
containing erroneous conclusions, based on faulty methodology, just
because it's the only one you can find? Brilliant!
Smarty
news:f7s5a4du3etios11q...@4ax.com...
Salty Dog,
I entirely andf totally disagree with your premise that their reliability
data is inherently "extremely faulty" since it is merely a statistical
compilation of 100s of thousands of readers experience. How would a
"brilliant" person gather and report on reliability data differently, if I
might ask?
You have a true blind spot, and no basis to make such an unsupportable
claim. Your "scientific approach" is clearly the one lacking any basis, not
theirs.
Smarty
Smarty
news:g7ur6...@news1.newsguy.com...
John,
Hardly!! They have no reliability data whatsoever I am aware of. Any by the
way, can you show me the link to their comparison of PC antivirus software
products? No you can't, because there isn't any such review. They are
profoundly smaller in scope compared to Consumer's Union. They deal much
more heavily with 'Consumer Satisfaction', a very useful metric for sure,
but they are not in the same engineering, publication, or investigative
reporting business as Consumer's Reports / CU at all.
Smarty
sa...@dog.com
wrote:
Let me guess... Folks call you "Smarty" for the same reason they call
a fat guy, "Tiny"
J. Clarke
Well, now we know that your research skills are on a par with those of
Consumer Reports.
> Any
> by the way, can you show me the link to their comparison of PC
> antivirus software products? No you can't, because there isn't any
> such review.
Would you provide one credible link to support the contention that PC
antivirus products suffer mechanical failure?
> They are profoundly smaller in scope compared to
> Consumer's Union. They deal much more heavily with 'Consumer
> Satisfaction', a very useful metric for sure, but they are not in
> the
> same engineering, publication, or investigative reporting business
> as
> Consumer's Reports / CU at all.
The issue was determination of reliability via consumer polling, not
"engineering, publication, or investigative reporting".
David Nebenzahl
> Chris wrote:
>
>> If you have more than one Windows machine try the Microsoft Live
>> OneCare deal. Has a free trial but after that will cost almost $60/year
>> for 3 PCs, I think. However has more than just anti-virus
>> protection.
>
> Good advice.
>
>> Or switch to Linux and get rid of the virus treat for ever :>)
>
> Right. Switch to a knock-off of a 40-year old operating system designed by a
> money-losing division of your local telephone company and enhanced my geeks
> who think the DOS command line interface is insufficiently cryptic.
Heh; good one. I happen to agree with you here. However, don't let's
forget that Mac's OS X, which is on a significantly larger number of
desktops than any of the *nixes, is also Unix, but with an elegant front
end that doesn't require any command like geek knowledge.
> By so doing, you might raise the percentage of desktops using Linux from its
> 0.86% level to something beyond the "barely detectable" designation.
Something all the Gnu, Linux, etc. folks never seem to grasp.
"It's so much better, so of course everyone's going to start using it.
Someday."
--
"Wikipedia ... it reminds me ... of dogs barking idiotically through
endless nights. It is so bad that a sort of grandeur creeps into it.
It drags itself out of the dark abyss of pish, and crawls insanely up
the topmost pinnacle of posh. It is rumble and bumble. It is flap and
doodle. It is balder and dash."
- With apologies to H. L. Mencken
Smarty
news:jc16a4l73qcvm666u...@4ax.com...
Salty Dog,
Now I know my point has been made properly. You no longer have an
intelligent or logical argument so yo decide to attack my name.
As a grandparent, I know very well how children behave when they have
nothing meaningful to say to defend themselves. Since you are apparently
also a retired person based on your earlier comment, what is your logical
argument? Or are we stuck at childish name-calling?
Smarty
sa...@dog.com
wrote:
You are just plain stuck.
...and wrong on too many counts to itemize them.
HAND
Smarty
John,
JD Powers makes no claims to measure reliability, a standard engineering
metric used and quantified throughout the engineering world. Instead they
coin their own "dependability" measure, a term they chose which is totally
unused in any quantifiable engineering way. Reliability talks in terms of
specific failure rates, failure modes, time between failures, and other very
concrete and universally accepted engineering measurements and terms used
for at least the 40+ years I have been a professional engineer. It has
specific and consistent meaning to anyone with a technical education in
engineering. Dependability is a phrase which a lot of companies hang their
hats on because it deliberately escapes precise and consistent usage and
meaning. No doubt JD Powers has chosen this to avoid explicit and concrete
definition of terms. Just as Maytag did in the desparate attempt to convince
people they still make 'dependable' appliances.
I have no idea what your point is regarding mechanical failures for PC
antivirus software. Clearly JD Powers is by no means nearly as comprehensive
in their scope of product reviews as Consumers Union. If you are trying to
argue to the contrary, please do so.
I agree with you that the point is determination of reliability via consumer
polling. I again ask you "Can you name a better database of reliability info
for consumer products"?
Smarty
Smarty
news:dhd6a4tad3qj9gotr...@4ax.com...
Salty Dog,
Well, I'm delighted we have returned from the little name-calling hissy-fit.
How about just itemizing one or two points where I am wrong so we can
intelligently discuss / debate them?
Smarty
Dan Espen
> On 8/13/2008 4:57 AM HeyBub spake thus:
>
>> Chris wrote:
> >
>>> If you have more than one Windows machine try the Microsoft Live
>>> OneCare deal. Has a free trial but after that will cost almost
>>> $60/year for 3 PCs, I think. However has more than just anti-virus
>>> protection.
>> Good advice.
>>
>>> Or switch to Linux and get rid of the virus treat for ever :>)
>> Right. Switch to a knock-off of a 40-year old operating system
>> designed by a money-losing division of your local telephone company
>> and enhanced my geeks who think the DOS command line interface is
>> insufficiently cryptic.
>
> Heh; good one.
No it's not. It's not any better than his "Linux
will give your cats warts" junk.
Linux hasn't relied on the command line interface for a long time now.
Might as well defend Bell Labs while I'm at it.
If you don't like the stuff that came out of that money losing division,
maybe you should turn off your computer.
> I happen to agree with you here. However, don't let's
> forget that Mac's OS X, which is on a significantly larger number of
> desktops than any of the *nixes, is also Unix, but with an elegant
> front end that doesn't require any command like geek knowledge.
Nothing wrong with AAPL except the proprietary interfaces.
If you go for slick front ends, OSX and Linux have Vista beat.
Personally, I want my computer to work the way I want it to.
I want to be in control of every aspect of the interface.
There, Linux is king.
>> By so doing, you might raise the percentage of desktops using Linux
>> from its 0.86% level to something beyond the "barely detectable"
>> designation.
>
> Something all the Gnu, Linux, etc. folks never seem to grasp.
Oh, that's clear enough, but who cares.
> "It's so much better, so of course everyone's going to start using
> it. Someday."
Nope, better doesn't seem to matter.
Well, except in the case of Vista vs. XP.
I'm only reading this thread because of the humor content.
Anti Virus software...what a joke.
You guys really pay for that stuff?
David Nebenzahl
> David Nebenzahl <nob...@but.us.chickens> writes:
>
>> I happen to agree with you here. However, don't let's
>> forget that Mac's OS X, which is on a significantly larger number of
>> desktops than any of the *nixes, is also Unix, but with an elegant
>> front end that doesn't require any command like geek knowledge.
>
> Nothing wrong with AAPL except the proprietary interfaces.
> If you go for slick front ends, OSX and Linux have Vista beat.
Probably true, but what about XP? (Please don't mistake me for a
Micro$oft partisan, but so far as I'm concerned, XP is plenty good
enough for most of us.) By the way, does "AAPL" mean "the NYSE symbol
for Apple"? That's an abbrev. I'm not familiar w/.
> Personally, I want my computer to work the way I want it to.
> I want to be in control of every aspect of the interface.
> There, Linux is king.
Sure, but again, that's sometimes the wrong argument for the wrong
audience. Like how all the open-source geeks are always raving about how
superior things like Firefox and Thunderbird are (both of which I use,
by the way) for just that very reason: that the user has full control
over lots of aspects of the program's behavior.
Problem is, a vanishingly small proportion of the population is 1) able
to and 2) wants to control their software at this level. To most folks,
dealing with Firefox and Thunderbird's hundreds of cryptic configuration
variables (with no good comprehensive documentation to boot, unless you
root around the web and happen to come upon some guy's partial
compilation by accident) is just a gigantic headache and a pain in the
ass that's just not worth the trouble. But I guess we should blame
*them* for not being computer-literate enough, right?
Dan Espen
> On 8/13/2008 1:36 PM Dan Espen spake thus:
>
>> David Nebenzahl <nob...@but.us.chickens> writes:
>>
>>> I happen to agree with you here. However, don't let's
>>> forget that Mac's OS X, which is on a significantly larger number of
>>> desktops than any of the *nixes, is also Unix, but with an elegant
>>> front end that doesn't require any command like geek knowledge.
>> Nothing wrong with AAPL except the proprietary interfaces.
>> If you go for slick front ends, OSX and Linux have Vista beat.
>
> Probably true, but what about XP? (Please don't mistake me for a
> Micro$oft partisan, but so far as I'm concerned, XP is plenty good
> enough for most of us.) By the way, does "AAPL" mean "the NYSE symbol
> for Apple"? That's an abbrev. I'm not familiar w/.
Yes, AAPL is the stock symbol.
OSX and Linux have XP beat too (if what you want is a slick
interface).
There are a million of these on youtube, here's one chosen at
random:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E4Fbk52Mk1w
>> Personally, I want my computer to work the way I want it to.
>> I want to be in control of every aspect of the interface.
>> There, Linux is king.
>
> Sure, but again, that's sometimes the wrong argument for the wrong
> audience. Like how all the open-source geeks are always raving about
> how superior things like Firefox and Thunderbird are (both of which I
> use, by the way) for just that very reason: that the user has full
> control over lots of aspects of the program's behavior.
Actually, for real geeks, the level of control goes much deeper
than what you see with Firefox of Thunderbird.
> Problem is, a vanishingly small proportion of the population is 1)
> able to and 2) wants to control their software at this level.
Can't agree, just about anyone can install and configure Firefox.
> To most
> folks, dealing with Firefox and Thunderbird's hundreds of cryptic
> configuration variables (with no good comprehensive documentation to
> boot, unless you root around the web and happen to come upon some
> guy's partial compilation by accident) is just a gigantic headache and
> a pain in the ass that's just not worth the trouble. But I guess we
> should blame *them* for not being computer-literate enough, right?
Not sure what you mean here.
I don't use Windows myself, but from what I've seen, Firefox and
Thunderbird are configured exactly the same way as IE and Outlook, thru
the menu dialogs.
If you really want something unusual you go
into "about:config". The same as IE and Outlook, except
for them it's the registry.
The docs for about:config aren't too hard to find either:
J. Clarke
I see. And so Consumer Reports in their owner surveys determines
"specific failure rates, failure modes, time between failures, and
other very concrete and universally accepted engineering measurements
and terms"?
I'm sorry, but you're quibbling over a point of nomenclature.
> I have no idea what your point is regarding mechanical failures for
> PC
> antivirus software. Clearly JD Powers is by no means nearly as
> comprehensive in their scope of product reviews as Consumers Union.
> If you are trying to argue to the contrary, please do so.
You stated that on other organization uses owner surveys to collect
reliability data. That is the point being addressed. When antivirus
software suffers "specific failure rates, failure modes, time between
failures, and other very concrete and universally accepted engineering
measurements and terms" then I will look for someone to be publishing
reliability information for antivirus software.
> I agree with you that the point is determination of reliability via
> consumer polling. I again ask you "Can you name a better database of
> reliability info for consumer products"?
Can you name _any_ such that measures reliability using _your_
definition?
Bolaleman
> sa...@dog.com wrote:
> > On Tue, 12 Aug 2008 12:53:18 -0500, "Steve Barker DLT"
> > <railphoto...@always.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> I'm a wondering what everyone is using for AV software. I've been using
> >> Trend micro pc-cillin for a few years, but it seems the 2008 version is not
> >> great. My local pc hardware guy agrees and recommends Kaspersky 2008
> >> Internet Security. Anyone heard of or used this one?
>
> >> thanks for all your input.
>
> >> steve
>
> > What is "not so great" about what you are using?
>
> antivirus, around 35 bucks/year for a 3-machine license on their web
> site. I can legally use Symantec (aka Norton) from work, for free, but
> after several problems with it fighting with windows, I said the hell
> with it and went elsewhere. Between the PCTools and switching to
> Firefox, no infections in close to a year (knock on plastic).
>
> --
> aem sends...- Ocultar texto de la cita -
>
> - Mostrar texto de la cita -
I had some problems in the past with McAfee AV as apparently my comp
was catched by a virus that first attacked the AV program :-( Then
I installed the free version of Avira AntiVir and since one year I
never had a problem with a virus attack again. It´s really worth to
give it a try.
The program can be downloaded here: www.free-av.com
An other page that is worse to visit is
http://2ajobguide.com/office_administrative_jobs_in_clerical.aspx
There you can browse in a database of 260,000 clerical/office
administrative job offers to find what you are looking for.
Smarty
John,
Consumers Union uses classical methods and practices to gather and analyze
reliability data, and indeed many other organizations do the same, most
notably the U.S. government whose military standards and MTBF/MTTR methods
shaped a large portion of this country's engineering development approach.
Detroit and other manufacturing centers for appliances and electronics have
done so for many. decades as well. Indeed CU uses traditional and well
accepted methods. Fundamentally they gather, record, and statistically
analyze a wide range of detailed failure modes for automobiles in particular
but also for other products, deriving failure probabilities which they then
portray in a simplified format for the average consumer to digest. They
typically use a 5 point scale with such headings as (Much Better than
Average, Better than Average, Average, Worse than Average, Much Worse than
Average), a bar chart, or some other graphically compact notation. Most
notable is their very large and statistically meaningful sample sizes, and
their surveying methods which have been refined over (at least) the 38 years
I have been a subscriber and survey participant.
If your point is that JD Powers is another legitimate database for some
consumer data related to reliability, I agree, but I strongly contend that
their scope and their sample sizes are smaller, vastly smaller in the case
of automobiles for example, despite their concentration in such products,
and vastly smaller in many areas where CU traditionally does its research
and they do not.
It is also no small coincidence that CU aggressively prevents advertising
and other patently obvious exploitation of their published results by
manufacturers to lure buyers. You will NEVER see a car or other product ad
which claims: "Selected as the best/most reliable/etc. by Consumers Report"
since CU has made it entirely clear that they will litigate and prevail if
such attempts are made.
JD Powers, on the other hand, is about as much "in bed" with Detroit and
other sources as one could imagine. They actively encourage their
endorsements to be used as selling tools. It doesn't take a genius to figure
out how this influence peddling cycle works.....
Smarty
David
"Kenneth" <use...@soleSPAMLESSassociates.com> wrote in message
news:b8v3a4pmjfrp69coq...@4ax.com...> Hi Steve,
>
> I have used Kaspersky AV on our seven systems for the last
> four years or so. I could not be happier with the product.
>
> I would not even consider any Norton, or Symantec product
> for a few reasons:
>
> Prior to KAV, we had Norton.
>
> One day, I noticed that one of our systems had a flag
> telling us that our NAV license was about to expire. I
> clicked to run though an automatic renewal process.
>
> Within a day or two, the same thing happened on a few of our
> other machines, but only after renewing three or four of
> them did I notice a problem:
>
> The warning was actually telling us that the licenses were
> to expire in thirty days, but when we renewed, we received
> and automatically installed a license that started on the
> day of the installation.
>
> In other words, Symantec had found a way to "eat" a month of
> the license.
>
> It was extremely sleazy to say the least.
>
> But that is only part of the problem:
>
> I called Symantec and requested a full refund on our
> purchases. After some hassling, we got the refund.
>
> impossible despite using the many "removal" tools Symantec
> provides.
>
> When the software had been partially removed we started
> getting frequent error messages relating to a Norton
> Anti-Worm tool that we had never purchased, and had never
> installed.
>
> Still, Symantec could not provide a way to remove all traces
> of their products.
>
> So, I would certainly not purchase one of their products
> again.
>
> I should also add that (at least in the form we purchase)
> Kaspersky is very modest in cost when compared to other
> similar products.
>
> All the best,
> --
> Kenneth
>
> If you email... Please remove the "SPAMLESS."
Kenneth,
I'm having the same problem with Norton that you described, completely
removing all traces of their product. Did you find a way to do it? If so, I
would really appreciate hearing what you did to get rid of all the pieces of
this product.
Thanks,
David
RLM
Most think Linux is some wild ass system that is all command line. I'm
with you. Let them suffer their fate. Keep buying proprietary crap ware.
My Linux runs if I never shut it down. It stays up to date within hours of
a problem. Not weeks that run into years without repair like the most
popular system that has these folks trapped with malware. I don't waste
time constantly doing maintenance of scanning and defraging. If I break
it, which I would have to try to do any more, I can repair the damage.
When a newer version comes out I just install it and don't loose
everything that has been saved in the past.
Basically the computer has to have the house fall on it to ruin it but the
software will work if I can salvage just the hard drive. I don't use it as
a windows server so I don't need virus software because we both know the
true key is a unique password that protects /, and a proper firewall. (c;\=
Isn't that right Dan?
Registered Linux user 297687
http://counter.li.org/
David Nebenzahl
> David Nebenzahl <nob...@but.us.chickens> writes:
>
>> On 8/13/2008 1:36 PM Dan Espen spake thus:
>>
>>> Personally, I want my computer to work the way I want it to.
>>> I want to be in control of every aspect of the interface.
>>> There, Linux is king.
>>
>> Sure, but again, that's sometimes the wrong argument for the wrong
>> audience. Like how all the open-source geeks are always raving about
>> how superior things like Firefox and Thunderbird are (both of which I
>> use, by the way) for just that very reason: that the user has full
>> control over lots of aspects of the program's behavior.
>>
>> Problem is, a vanishingly small proportion of the population is 1)
>> able to and 2) wants to control their software at this level.
>
> Can't agree, just about anyone can install and configure Firefox.
Anyone can install Firefox or Thunderbird. So far as configuring them
goes, depends on how far you take "configuration". A lot of settings are
available in the Account Settings and Options menus, true, but I doubt
most users would even venture so far as the about:config settings you
mention below. Probably less than 5% of users would be my guess.
>> To most folks, dealing with Firefox and Thunderbird's hundreds of
>> cryptic configuration variables (with no good comprehensive
>> documentation to boot, unless you root around the web and happen to
>> come upon some guy's partial compilation by accident) is just a
>> gigantic headache and a pain in the ass that's just not worth the
>> trouble. But I guess we should blame *them* for not being
>> computer-literate enough, right?
>
> Not sure what you mean here. I don't use Windows myself, but from
> what I've seen, Firefox and Thunderbird are configured exactly the
> same way as IE and Outlook, thru the menu dialogs.
>
> If you really want something unusual you go into "about:config". The
> same as IE and Outlook, except for them it's the registry.
That's part of what I'm talking about. F'rinstance, when you install
Thunderbird, one of the settings makes it want to automatically dial an
Internet connection if you're on dialup, something I *don't* want to
happen. It took quite some digging to discover the config item
(network.autodial-helper.enabled) to change this behavior.
And then there's the stuff that can only be had through editing
userpref.js and "chrome" files. A user with working knowledge of
Javascript and CSS would have few problems with this. How many users
have that knowledge, or even *want* it?
> The docs for about:config aren't too hard to find either:
>
> http://kb.mozillazine.org/About:config
I remember when I tried to find documentation for about:config, it was
pretty hard to find. Perhaps that's been fixed since.
J. Clarke
I am curious. What exactly is your relationship with Consumer
Reports?
rose
lately. I also heard that Kaspersky is excellent. I downloaded their
trial version but had a terrible time configuring it. They just came out
with there new version and I tried to download the trial version of
that. I kept getting errors and finally said f- it. Their cusomer
service is paultry. I heard Bit-Defender is good but haven't looked into
it yet.
While I still search for one, I'm using Avira's Antivir free.
I am also using Online Armour as a firewall which is free and very
highly rated.
hope that helps,
rose
Chris
> Chris wrote:
>> If you have more than one Windows machine try the Microsoft Live
>> OneCare deal. Has a free trial but after that will cost almost $60/year
>> for 3 PCs, I think. However has more than just anti-virus
>> protection.
>
> Good advice.
>
>> Or switch to Linux and get rid of the virus treat for ever :>)
>
> Right. Switch to a knock-off of a 40-year old operating system designed by a
> money-losing division of your local telephone company and enhanced my geeks
> who think the DOS command line interface is insufficiently cryptic.
>
> 0.86% level to something beyond the "barely detectable" designation.
>
>
Chris
> On 8/13/2008 4:57 AM HeyBub spake thus:
>
>> Chris wrote:
> >
>>> If you have more than one Windows machine try the Microsoft Live
>>> OneCare deal. Has a free trial but after that will cost almost
>>> $60/year for 3 PCs, I think. However has more than just anti-virus
>>> protection.
>>
>> Good advice.
>>
>>> Or switch to Linux and get rid of the virus treat for ever :>)
>>
>> Right. Switch to a knock-off of a 40-year old operating system
>> designed by a money-losing division of your local telephone company
>> and enhanced my geeks who think the DOS command line interface is
>> insufficiently cryptic.
>
> Heh; good one. I happen to agree with you here. However, don't let's
> forget that Mac's OS X, which is on a significantly larger number of
> desktops than any of the *nixes, is also Unix, but with an elegant front
> end that doesn't require any command like geek knowledge.
>
>> By so doing, you might raise the percentage of desktops using Linux
>> from its 0.86% level to something beyond the "barely detectable"
>> designation.
>
> Something all the Gnu, Linux, etc. folks never seem to grasp.
> "It's so much better, so of course everyone's going to start using it.
> Someday."
>
>
than there are hammer, screwdriver or skill saw folks. If you would
care to look around would see only people who use different tools when
they need them. I use Linux, Windows and Mac OS X.
What else are you confused about?
sa...@dog.com
Dear Heybub,
Please try to be gentle with folks such as Chris. They are extremely
frustrated already by their poor choice of an obtuse and arcane
operating system. They now have to fiercely defend that poor choice,
which stresses them out even further. They are, as a group, very thin
skinned, and if you persist, poor Chris's head may well explode. You
wouldn't want to be responsible for a tradgedy like that, would you?
WOULD YOU???
David Nebenzahl
> On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 17:27:47 -0400, Dan Espen wrote:
>
>> David Nebenzahl <nob...@but.us.chickens> writes:
>>
>>> On 8/13/2008 1:36 PM Dan Espen spake thus:
>>>
>>>> David Nebenzahl <nob...@but.us.chickens> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> I happen to agree with you here. However, don't let's forget that
>>>>> Mac's OS X, which is on a significantly larger number of desktops
>>>>> than any of the *nixes, is also Unix, but with an elegant front end
>>>>> that doesn't require any command like geek knowledge.
>>
>> OSX and Linux have XP beat too (if what you want is a slick interface).
>>
>> There are a million of these on youtube, here's one chosen at random:
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E4Fbk52Mk1w
>>
>>>> Personally, I want my computer to work the way I want it to. I want to
>>>> be in control of every aspect of the interface. There, Linux is king.
>>>
>>> Sure, but again, that's sometimes the wrong argument for the wrong
>>> audience. Like how all the open-source geeks are always raving about
>>> how superior things like Firefox and Thunderbird are (both of which I
>>> use, by the way) for just that very reason: that the user has full
>>> control over lots of aspects of the program's behavior.
>>>
>>> Problem is, a vanishingly small proportion of the population is 1) able
>>> to and 2) wants to control their software at this level.
>>
>> Can't agree, just about anyone can install and configure Firefox.
>>
>>> To most
>>> folks, dealing with Firefox and Thunderbird's hundreds of cryptic
>>> configuration variables (with no good comprehensive documentation to
>>> boot, unless you root around the web and happen to come upon some guy's
>>> partial compilation by accident) is just a gigantic headache and a pain
>>> in the ass that's just not worth the trouble. But I guess we should
>>> blame *them* for not being computer-literate enough, right?
>>
>> Not sure what you mean here.
>> I don't use Windows myself, but from what I've seen, Firefox and
>> Thunderbird are configured exactly the same way as IE and Outlook, thru
>> the menu dialogs.
>>
>> If you really want something unusual you go into "about:config". The
>> same as IE and Outlook, except for them it's the registry.
>
> Most think Linux is some wild ass system that is all command line. I'm
> with you. Let them suffer their fate. Keep buying proprietary crap ware.
>
> My Linux runs if I never shut it down. It stays up to date within hours of
> a problem. Not weeks that run into years without repair like the most
> popular system that has these folks trapped with malware. I don't waste
> time constantly doing maintenance of scanning and defraging. If I break
> it, which I would have to try to do any more, I can repair the damage.
> When a newer version comes out I just install it and don't loose
> everything that has been saved in the past.
>
> Basically the computer has to have the house fall on it to ruin it but the
> software will work if I can salvage just the hard drive. I don't use it as
> a windows server so I don't need virus software because we both know the
> true key is a unique password that protects /, and a proper firewall. (c;\=
>
> Isn't that right Dan?
>
> Registered Linux user 297687
> http://counter.li.org/
Let me say first that I'm not picking a fight over which OS is better. I
concede that Linux is probably better than any of the "proprietary" OSes.
But you're missing the points, one of which is that the "superior OS" is
only used by a tiny fraction of computer users, despite it being so
all-fired better, but more importantly, that's really the OS of choice
of computer geeks, not most users.
Let me ask you in all sincerity: do you think the average user could
(assuming they knew about it, and assuming they wanted to) successfully
install Linux on a computer and keep it running? I ask out of ignorance,
having never installed it myself.
And even if they could do that, I doubt if they have the knowledge you
have which would let them recover from problems as easily as you do.
It may be a great OS, but face it, it's never going to be used by
anything but a tiny minority of those with computers.
aemeijers
>>>
> And their
>> reliability ratings are meaningless, like any self-selected polling pool.
>>
>> --
>> aem sends...
>
>
>
> I entirely disagree. They gather annual reliability data from 100's of
> thousands of readers through a 4 to 6 page survey form, and publish an
> analysis of the results. You may call their ratings "meaningless", but I
> will take them any day as a lot better reference than any other source I
> am aware of. Can you name a better database of reliability info for
> consumer products? For that matter, can you name "ANY" other source of
> reliability data on consumer items other than your typical anecdotal
> opinions of a salesperson or neighbor?
>
man, learn to trim! :^/
By 'self selected':
1. They only survey subscribers, who are by definition not regular
consumers, but rather people who consider themselves smart shoppers.
2. What reply rate do they get on their surveys? I'd be real surprised
if it is over 20-30 percent. Again, self selected.
3. I'm no expert, but I have written or evaluated a few customer surveys
over the years. I found 2 clusters of typical replies- people who are
pissed, and people who are still trying to justify their purchase (to
themselves, spouse, whatever. I dunno.) People who bought something to
do a job, and find that it works, are seldom motivated to report on
their experience, IMHO. What do you do with the pop-up surveys on vendor
web sites? You made your purchase already, or sent in your trouble
ticket, or whatever. What is the motivation to fill out the survey,
unless you still want to vent?
In this age of disposable products and essentially meaningless
warranties, I don't think there ARE any valid indicators of quality and
reliability for consumer goods, other than the shadow indicator of
overall/ongoing sales figures and repeat business. It isn't like
industrial or commercial equipment, where every service call and
warranty claim are logged by vendor and customer, and problem brands and
vendors do not get the repeat business. When I buy 20-30 K worth of
hardware from a vendor, he REALLY wants me to be happy, so I'll come
back. Something doesn't work, I get a swapout shipped overnight, or they
send a tech out. When I buy a 20 dollar item at Wally World, neither the
manufacturer or reseller really care- they already have my money. Any
further contact with me is just an expense to them.
How do I judge quality of consumer items? School of hard knocks, mainly.
I look real hard at the demo unit in the store, run my hands over it,
see if it feels like flimsy junk, look at the fit, finish, machining and
plating quality, so on and so forth. Once you have been buying things a
few years, junk usually announces itself pretty well, as does quality.
(Best example is hand tools- if it feels wrong in your hand, it is
probably crap.) If I an buying remotely, like on line, I'll go by what
brands have served me well in the past, as well as the informed opinions
(however anecdotal) of people I know and trust who have purchased from
that manufacturer before.
--
aem sends, rant depleted....
David Nebenzahl
From what I've seen from HeyBub, he might get a chuckle out of that.
(Not saying *I* would; I'm agnostic on that part of it.)
Dan Espen
> Basically the computer has to have the house fall on it to ruin it but the
> software will work if I can salvage just the hard drive. I don't use it as
> a windows server so I don't need virus software because we both know the
> true key is a unique password that protects /, and a proper firewall. (c;\=
>
> Isn't that right Dan?
No argument here.
Man I'd hate to be running some kind of AV examining my emails, all my
inbound files. That has to slow the system to a crawl.
I sleep better knowing exactly what my machine is doing.
Smarty
>
> I am curious. What exactly is your relationship with Consumer
> Reports?
>
> --
> --
> --John
> to email, dial "usenet" and validate
> (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
>
>
John,
I received a 1 year subscription to Consumers Reports as a wedding gift in
the late 1960s when I got married. Ever since then, I have renewed the
subscription, and used their reviews to assist me in making shopping
decisions. I have purchased many major items over nearly 40 years with their
input, and in many if not most cases, found their comparisons and data to be
accurate and generally valid. In cases where I have been disappointed, I can
often find a good reason which really explains why their choice and my
experience differ, typically my false assumption that they will compare
products using much the same discriminants which I would.
When I retrospectively look back upon items I have purchased for which they
collect and report reliability, my experiences are very much correlated with
their data. Obvious examples would be extreme satisfaction with my current
car's repair history, which matches their data to an uncanny extent, as well
as dissatisfaction with the repair history of a few home appliances which
they now report in the lower ranking repair data.
My only other connection was a single opportunity to perform certain testing
which fell under a non-disclosure agreement whose duration I cannot
accurately recall as a hired consulting engineering company employee in the
early 1990s. They impressed me tremendously with their very thorough, very
well informed, and very meticulous approach to the specific testing which
required lab facilities which they lacked and my employer possessed.
You asked a full disclosure and this is about all I can offer. There are,
and have been, specialized test facilities and labs whose opinions and
evaluations I would value as superior to CU. For many years as an avid
(rabid?) audiophile, I would not especially trust my selection of audio gear
to CU when better evaluations were being offered in the audiophile magazines
and from some distinguished engineers whose opinions I valued. To this day,
I would put more stock and value in reading lens evaluations and camera
evaluations from others on the Internet and elsewhere rather than depend on
CU. I do sincerely believe, however, that they act with integrity, very good
technical judgment, impartiality, and mostly correct metrics.
Incidentally, I have been briefly involved with the CPSC, the Consumer
Product Safety Commission, in a consulting role. I won't elaborate except to
say that they are an extremely poor excuse for a testing organization.
Smarty
Dan Espen
> Let me say first that I'm not picking a fight over which OS is
> better. I concede that Linux is probably better than any of the
> "proprietary" OSes.
>
> But you're missing the points, one of which is that the "superior OS"
> is only used by a tiny fraction of computer users, despite it being so
> all-fired better, but more importantly, that's really the OS of choice
> of computer geeks, not most users.
I haven't missed that point. I concede that there are more people
running Windows.
I don't see how it's all that important to be using what everyone
else is using.
> Let me ask you in all sincerity: do you think the average user could
> (assuming they knew about it, and assuming they wanted to)
> successfully install Linux on a computer and keep it running? I ask
> out of ignorance, having never installed it myself.
Yes. Linux installs have gotten easier and easier.
If you can install XP, you'll find installing Linux is even easier
(without all the reboots).
If you can't install XP, you can run Linux without even doing a
proper install. There are "live CDs". Just put the CD in the drive and
reboot. You don't install anything it just runs Linux.
If you have a machine that can boot from USB there are versions that
run from a USB device.
> And even if they could do that, I doubt if they have the knowledge you
> have which would let them recover from problems as easily as you do.
How do you deal with Windows problems? Same technique works with
Linux.
For many people, it's not an either or type choice. Many people
run both. They set up their machines for dual boot. If you've got
to get something done and you can't figure out how to do it, boot into
the other OS. Many people claim they switch back and forth and eventually
find they don't need Windows after a while. For some it goes the other
way.
> It may be a great OS, but face it, it's never going to be used by
> anything but a tiny minority of those with computers.
If your goal is to run what everyone else runs, Linux isn't a good
choice.
If you have any curiosity burn a live CD and see how far you get.
It won't hurt anything.
I think what surprises most people is the massive amount of
free software available. The "Add/Remove Programs" feature
really works. In Windows, all it's good for is removing
stuff. With Linux there are thousands of free applications to
install and have fun with.
Smarty
>
I may be entirely atypical, but I consistently submit their survey each year
with the good, the bad, and the ugly all reported as honestly as I can. I
don't personally subscribe to the opinion that only self-selected and highly
opinionated replies with disgruntled consumers comprise their results. The
Lexus survey shows their car to be nearly perfect in terms of its aging
characteristics, and the opposite is true for some other brands, with every
type of good and bad in between.
I think there ***ARE*** valid indicators of quality and reliability, and I,
for one, would much rather buy a mattress which has withstood tens of
thousands of testing impacts without collapse rather than buy one which
falls apart in the same testing sequence. Ditto for most other items they
test. If anything, I would argue that a world of crappy products and even
crappier warrantees ***DEMANDS*** that consumers apply whatever selection
methods they can to make an informed decision. I categorically reject the
notion that complex and expensive items should be purchased ad hoc, or by
any "dumbed-down" method which entirely overlooks intrinsic design or build
quality.
For many items, the methods you recommend make a great deal of sense to me,
and I too use all of my own powers of observation to make the right choice.
The look, the feel, the heft, the fit, the finish, etc........ This
inspection approach is very useful, necessary, but not sufficient in many
cases however, since they are often far too superficial. I will entrust
somebody with good instruments to measure my future tires, mattresses, cars,
and many other items where the observations from eyes and hands are not
enough. Anecdotal opinions and past experience are both also very useful,
but again not enough to really answer the question for most purchases. As an
engineer, I will admit that I tend to sweat a lot of details and worry a lot
of nit-picking points, so I don't presume others have the time, inclination,
or technical interest / background to dissect and analyze some of this
stuff. And they are clearly entitled to their choices no more or no less
than I am.
Smarty
Ron
>
> I'm having the same problem with Norton that you described, completely
> removing all traces of their product. Did you find a way to do it? If so, I
> would really appreciate hearing what you did to get rid of all the pieces of
> this product.
>
> Thanks,
>
> David
Don't know if it work after the initial uninstall but here is what you
need.
http://service1.symantec.com/Support/tsgeninfo.nsf/docid/2005033108162039
You might also want download and try the Revo uninstaller. (it's
free)
J. Clarke
I figured you'd been on their payroll at some point. Glad to know I
was right.
<plonk>
Chris
David Nebenzahl
> Smarty wrote:
>
>> Incidentally, I have been briefly involved with the CPSC, the
>> Consumer Product Safety Commission, in a consulting role. I won't
>> elaborate except to say that they are an extremely poor excuse for
>> a testing organization.
>
> I figured you'd been on their payroll at some point. Glad to know I
> was right.
>
> <plonk>
This idjit obviously can't distinguish between Consumer's Union and the
CPSC. I wouldn't sweat being "plonk"ed by him.
Smarty
news:48a3a37e$0$24591$8226...@news.adtechcomputers.com...
> On 8/13/2008 6:08 PM J. Clarke spake thus:
>
>> Smarty wrote:
> >
>>> Incidentally, I have been briefly involved with the CPSC, the Consumer
>>> Product Safety Commission, in a consulting role. I won't
>>> elaborate except to say that they are an extremely poor excuse for
>>> a testing organization.
>>
>> I figured you'd been on their payroll at some point. Glad to know I was
>> right.
>>
>> <plonk>
>
>
>
> --
> "Wikipedia ... it reminds me ... of dogs barking idiotically through
> endless nights. It is so bad that a sort of grandeur creeps into it.
> It drags itself out of the dark abyss of pish, and crawls insanely up
> the topmost pinnacle of posh. It is rumble and bumble. It is flap and
> doodle. It is balder and dash."
>
> - With apologies to H. L. Mencken
Thanks David. It's clear to me that John needed a way to exit this dialog
while still saving face. Since the argument he raised was no longer
defendable, and he (thankfully) chose not to get into a name-calling escape
like Salty Dog, he chose the next obvious tactic, to attempt some "guilt by
association" strategy.
It entirely backfired, since the point he made is, as you state, idiotic and
specious.
Thanks for your support David. I have absolutely no hidden agenda here
except that I wanted to offer the original poster a source of very recent
(September 08) reviews of antivirus software, and I find Consumer Reports
and Consumers Union to be great resources, and originally recommended them
for that reason. Why somebody else needs to attack my suggestion in the
first place can only be explained by the myriad of weird people who show up
on the Internet with a need to criticize.
Smarty
Smarty
David Nebenzahl
> "David Nebenzahl" <nob...@but.us.chickens> wrote in message
> news:48a3a37e$0$24591$8226...@news.adtechcomputers.com...
>
>> On 8/13/2008 6:08 PM J. Clarke spake thus:
>>
>>> Smarty wrote:
>> >
>>>> Incidentally, I have been briefly involved with the CPSC, the Consumer
>>>> Product Safety Commission, in a consulting role. I won't
>>>> elaborate except to say that they are an extremely poor excuse for
>>>> a testing organization.
>>>
>>> I figured you'd been on their payroll at some point. Glad to know I was
>>> right.
>>>
>>> <plonk>
>>
>> This idjit obviously can't distinguish between Consumer's Union and the
>> CPSC. I wouldn't sweat being "plonk"ed by him.
>
> Thanks David. It's clear to me that John needed a way to exit this dialog
> while still saving face. Since the argument he raised was no longer
> defendable, and he (thankfully) chose not to get into a name-calling escape
> like Salty Dog, he chose the next obvious tactic, to attempt some "guilt by
> association" strategy.
You're welcome.
Couple meta-things:
1) Why did you feel compelled to change my spelling in what you quoted?
When I wrote "idjit", I meant it.
2) You oughta learn how (or set up your mail/news program (Microsoft
Windows Mail 6.0 from the looks of things) to trim signatures from your
replies (the two hyphens in a row are the standard delimiter, and it
seems every other mail/news client in the world *except* Microsoft's
adhere to this time-honored tradition).
Smarty
My apologies for correcting the apparent mis-spelled word. I spell check
withot regard to who made the (apparent) error so it was not obvious where
it originated as I clicked through the spell checker.
Indeed my Windows Mail program does not offer any option to trim signatures
automatically, and my custom is to not particularly trim the thread exchange
heavily if at all. I agree that it is more easily read, transmitted, and
stored in an edited form. Mea culpa... ;-)
Smarty
sa...@dog.com
If you knew more, you wouldn't get surprised so often by "miracles".
sa...@dog.com
HeyBub
>>>
>>>> Or switch to Linux and get rid of the virus treat for ever :>)
>>> Right. Switch to a knock-off of a 40-year old operating system
>>> designed by a money-losing division of your local telephone company
>>> and enhanced my geeks who think the DOS command line interface is
>>> insufficiently cryptic.
>>
>
> No it's not. It's not any better than his "Linux
> will give your cats warts" junk.
> Linux hasn't relied on the command line interface for a long time now.
I never said "Linux will give your cat warts." You're thinking of Firefox.
>
> I'm only reading this thread because of the humor content.
> Anti Virus software...what a joke.
>
> You guys really pay for that stuff?
If you mean XP/Vista vs. Linux? Sure.
It's the difference between dating a chorus girl compared to opening the
back door and screwing the whole world.
HeyBub
>
> OSX and Linux have XP beat too (if what you want is a slick
> interface).
>
That's like the company that touts in boring detail the qualities of it's
1/4" drill bit [pardon the pun] and completely misses the fact that, in
spite of millions of 1/4" drill bits being sold each year, NO ONE WANTS A
1/4" DRILL BIT!
What they want is a 1/4" hole.
HeyBub
>
> Basically the computer has to have the house fall on it to ruin it
> but the software will work if I can salvage just the hard drive. I
> don't use it as
> a windows server so I don't need virus software because we both know
> the true key is a unique password that protects /, and a proper
> firewall. (c;\=
>
> Isn't that right Dan?
Just keep on truckin', dude. I wish you well.
Ignore the fact that the most destructive virus in the history of computing
involved Unix (Linux) operating systems.
HeyBub
>>> Right. Switch to a knock-off of a 40-year old operating system
>>> designed by a money-losing division of your local telephone company
>>> and enhanced my geeks who think the DOS command line interface is
>>> insufficiently cryptic.
>>>
>>> By so doing, you might raise the percentage of desktops using Linux
>>> from its
>>> 0.86% level to something beyond the "barely detectable" designation.
>>>
>>>
>> Having a bad day? Chill off.
>
> Dear Heybub,
>
> Please try to be gentle with folks such as Chris. They are extremely
> frustrated already by their poor choice of an obtuse and arcane
> operating system. They now have to fiercely defend that poor choice,
> which stresses them out even further. They are, as a group, very thin
> skinned, and if you persist, poor Chris's head may well explode. You
> wouldn't want to be responsible for a tradgedy like that, would you?
> WOULD YOU???
Linux is another Microsoft mistake!
I've held, for a long time, that the development of Linux was secretly
funded by Microsoft in an attempt to drain the nay-sayers, nit-pickers,
pettifogs, cut-purses, and athletes of the tongue from the ranks of serious
computer users so we normal folk could go about our computing experiences
unmolested.
Unfortunately, all the hirsute people who smell funny now gather together
electronically and bother the rest of us, much like another Microsoft
experiment involving a paper-clip.