 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Yes, it's true. Some while ago, I uninstalled Thunderbird on my work PC
and tried to install a newer version. The newer version didn't work. So
I removed it and reinstalled the old version. Which didn't work either.
So for many months now, I have been unable to read this newsgroup from work.
Ah, but now I finally have a new PC. It was touch-and-go for a long time
there, but eventually I got one.
Yesterday I was using an AMD K6-II 500 MHz system with Windoze NT 4.0
SP6a and 128 MB RAM. (And an SiS Trio3D/2X graphics card, in case you care.)
Today I have an AMD AthlonXP 1700+ (1.5 GHz) system with 256 MB RAM
running Windoze XP. And Thunderbird works again. Yays!
Our very own Cute Sales Girl was awarded a shiny new Intel Core 2 Duo
laptop, thus making her desktop PC free. So I brought it over to my own
desk, spent 20 minutes wiring it up, and then... discovered that it no
longer boots. (Makes long beeping noises instead.)
So that got sent away to be fixed. However, our lab director's old PC is
now fixed, so that came back and I set about using that. Until I
discovered that it reboots at random moments. (As in, I couldn't keep it
running long enough for it to boot up completely.) Further analysis
showed a memory fault.
So that got sent away to be fixed [again]. However, the first PC is now
back having been fixed. Imagine my misery when I discovered that it
reboots as soon as it tries to read from the CD drive during startup. (I
was trying to boot KNOPPIX.) Oddly, it only did that twice; now it works
perfectly.
So *finally* I have a working PC. (My old one lets you log in 80% of the
time. The other 20% of the time, it yields a Blue Screen Of Death half
way through the login process. It is *intensely* frustrating when you're
trying to log in to have to reboot half a dozen times!)
So... yays!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
...and the ancient Thunderbird threading bug resurfaces. *sigh*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible escribió:
> Yes, it's true. Some while ago, I uninstalled Thunderbird on my work PC
> and tried to install a newer version. The newer version didn't work. So
> I removed it and reinstalled the old version. Which didn't work either.
> So for many months now, I have been unable to read this newsgroup from
> work.
>
> Ah, but now I finally have a new PC. It was touch-and-go for a long time
> there, but eventually I got one.
>
Hey, long time no see.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible <voi### [at] dev null> wrote:
> Yes, it's true. Some while ago, I uninstalled Thunderbird on my work PC
> and tried to install a newer version. The newer version didn't work. So
> I removed it and reinstalled the old version. Which didn't work either.
> So for many months now, I have been unable to read this newsgroup from work.
>
I installed Thunderbird and soon thought something was messed up.
Thunderbird has to be gone now since the registry was replaced with one saved
prior its installation.
The only way I've been able to run for years is by saving user and system.dat
win.ini and system.ini too
(win 98 SE)
other OSs, I have no idea.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 02 Nov 2007 14:51:12 +0000, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>Today I have an AMD AthlonXP 1700+ (1.5 GHz) system with 256 MB RAM
>running Windoze XP. And Thunderbird works again. Yays!
You should have them opt for a tad more RAM. It'd likely make a world of difference
in performance.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Kyle wrote:
> On Fri, 02 Nov 2007 14:51:12 +0000, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>
>> Today I have an AMD AthlonXP 1700+ (1.5 GHz) system with 256 MB RAM
>> running Windoze XP. And Thunderbird works again. Yays!
>
> You should have them opt for a tad more RAM. It'd likely make a world of difference
in performance.
>
who cares - he's only the lonely IT guy
besides, he *did* get a faster machine
But I do feel for you Andrew... Who decides what these machines have anyway
Tom
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Kyle wrote:
> You should have them opt for a tad more RAM. It'd likely make a world of difference
in performance.
Yeah, well, it's not a new PC. It's one somebody else already had.
Beggers can't be choosers, and all that...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Kyle wrote:
> On Fri, 02 Nov 2007 14:51:12 +0000, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>
>> Today I have an AMD AthlonXP 1700+ (1.5 GHz) system with 256 MB RAM
>> running Windoze XP. And Thunderbird works again. Yays!
>
> You should have them opt for a tad more RAM. It'd likely make a world of difference
in performance.
I'm failing to see any meaningful performance difference...
(I now have 1280 MB RAM.)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 12:29:04 +0000, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>I'm failing to see any meaningful performance difference...
I boot an XP system with only minimal software running (virus protection, Novell
client, Windows services) and am using 160MB instantly. I'm at 346MB with Firefox,
Free Agent and a calendar opened.
If I open a few office documents and my development environment, I'll be even further
over 256MB. There would definitely be lag from drive swapping (thrashing) while
switching applications or running
a memory intensive application.
I'm surprised you don't see a difference. Do you only ever run one simple application
at a time?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Kyle wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 12:29:04 +0000, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>
>> I'm failing to see any meaningful performance difference...
>
> I'm surprised you don't see a difference. Do you only ever run one simple
application at a time?
Yes. Because it's far too slow to open multiple programs at once.
I was hoping that adding 5x more RAM would make the machine faster and
more responsive. But no, it still takes 20 minutes to boot up, and it's
still horribly slow to start any applications (or even shut them down).
It probably doesn't help that the new AV software seems to take ages to
update itself, and my enemies in the USA have configured it to update
once per hour (??!!?!)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v7 nous apporta ses lumieres en ce 2007/12/28 05:43:
> Kyle wrote:
>> On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 12:29:04 +0000, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>>
>>> I'm failing to see any meaningful performance difference...
>>
>> I'm surprised you don't see a difference. Do you only ever run one
>> simple application at a time?
>
> Yes. Because it's far too slow to open multiple programs at once.
>
> I was hoping that adding 5x more RAM would make the machine faster and
> more responsive. But no, it still takes 20 minutes to boot up, and it's
> still horribly slow to start any applications (or even shut them down).
>
> It probably doesn't help that the new AV software seems to take ages to
> update itself, and my enemies in the USA have configured it to update
> once per hour (??!!?!)
>
Your antivirus is probably way to agressive, scanning each and every files
everytimes they are accessed in any way. If a non infectable file was accessed
10 seconds ago, why scan it again? Why scan it the first time? Some AV will scan
any BMP, TXT and INI files on each access.
Look if you can change it's settings, exclude some extentions and folders.
Change the update scedule from hourly to dayly. Hourly updates often realy do
nothing at all, exept using your resources.
You may try some other AV.
--
Alain
-------------------------------------------------
You know you've been raytracing too long when you invented glasses that can be
configured to use variable resolution (eg. 320x240, 640x480, etc.), with POV-Ray
style switches for other effects (eg. anti-aliasing, radiosity, etc.)
Vimal N. Lad / Gautam N. Lad
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Alain wrote:
>> It probably doesn't help that the new AV software seems to take ages
>> to update itself, and my enemies in the USA have configured it to
>> update once per hour (??!!?!)
>>
> Your antivirus is probably way to agressive, scanning each and every
> files everytimes they are accessed in any way. If a non infectable file
> was accessed 10 seconds ago, why scan it again? Why scan it the first
> time? Some AV will scan any BMP, TXT and INI files on each access.
> Look if you can change it's settings, exclude some extentions and folders.
We were using Symantec. Only scans files which are actually "executable"
in some way. Only bothers to rescan them if they get written to. (Or the
definitions are updated.)
> Change the update scedule from hourly to dayly. Hourly updates often
> realy do nothing at all, exept using your resources.
Indeed. When I was in control of the settings, I had it set to daily.
(And a time that won't upset the guys who actually earn our money.)
Hourly? WTF? Are you mental??
> You may try some other AV.
Nope. Company policy. (Obviously nobody asked me...)
It's probably not actually a bad product, just silly configuration.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v7 nous apporta ses lumieres en ce 2007/12/28 15:32:
> Alain wrote:
>
>>> It probably doesn't help that the new AV software seems to take ages
>>> to update itself, and my enemies in the USA have configured it to
>>> update once per hour (??!!?!)
>>>
>> Your antivirus is probably way to agressive, scanning each and every
>> files everytimes they are accessed in any way. If a non infectable
>> file was accessed 10 seconds ago, why scan it again? Why scan it the
>> first time? Some AV will scan any BMP, TXT and INI files on each access.
>> Look if you can change it's settings, exclude some extentions and
>> folders.
>
> We were using Symantec. Only scans files which are actually "executable"
> in some way. Only bothers to rescan them if they get written to. (Or the
> definitions are updated.)
>
>> Change the update scedule from hourly to dayly. Hourly updates often
>> realy do nothing at all, exept using your resources.
>
> Indeed. When I was in control of the settings, I had it set to daily.
> (And a time that won't upset the guys who actually earn our money.)
> Hourly? WTF? Are you mental??
>
>> You may try some other AV.
>
> Nope. Company policy. (Obviously nobody asked me...)
>
> It's probably not actually a bad product, just silly configuration.
>
Symantec is notorious for been overly invasive and very resources hungry,
benchmarks showing up to 80%, and more, performance hit! Some peoples place ther
products among the worst offenders for bad overall system performances. It
constantly monitorize every applications behaviour, every read and writes to the
disk in an attepmt to catch some nefarious act.
Some peoples go as far as to say that you are beter taking your chances without
ANY AV, than to use Symantec products...
--
Alain
-------------------------------------------------
History, in general, only informs us of what bad government is.
Thomas Jefferson
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Alain wrote:
> Symantec is notorious for been overly invasive and very resources
> hungry, benchmarks showing up to 80%, and more, performance hit! Some
> peoples place ther products among the worst offenders for bad overall
> system performances. It constantly monitorize every applications
> behaviour, every read and writes to the disk in an attepmt to catch some
> nefarious act.
> Some peoples go as far as to say that you are beter taking your chances
> without ANY AV, than to use Symantec products...
Note that I am *not* using the consumer-level Symantec AV product. I'm
using the corportate-only, volume licensed version. And frankly, you
hardly notice it's there. There seems to be very little performance
impact - until it's update time.
Symantec is the product we're migrating off. My PC at work has something
called Trend Micro. (Ever heard of that one? I hadn't.)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v7 escribió:
> Note that I am *not* using the consumer-level Symantec AV product. I'm
> using the corportate-only, volume licensed version. And frankly, you
> hardly notice it's there. There seems to be very little performance
> impact - until it's update time.
You said it takes ages to open anything on your computer. Did you
actually try disabling the antivirus *completely* and seeing if the
slowdown goes away?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> Orchid XP v7 escribió:
>> Note that I am *not* using the consumer-level Symantec AV product. I'm
>> using the corportate-only, volume licensed version. And frankly, you
>> hardly notice it's there. There seems to be very little performance
>> impact - until it's update time.
>
> You said it takes ages to open anything on your computer. Did you
> actually try disabling the antivirus *completely* and seeing if the
> slowdown goes away?
I tried it before any AV was installed at all. As in, just after I
finished installing Windoze on a blank HD. It was still slow as hell.
Does that count?
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Kyle wrote:
> I boot an XP system with only minimal software running (virus protection,
Virus protection: An attempt to solve the halting problem.
On-access scanning: An attempt to make virus protection seem like less
of a performance hog by only running it when you're trying to do
something else.
(Not mine, but I don't know whose it is. :-)
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
It's not feature creep if you put it
at the end and adjust the release date.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New nous apporta ses lumieres en ce 2007/12/31 22:57:
> Virus protection: An attempt to solve the halting problem.
>
> On-access scanning: An attempt to make virus protection seem like less
> of a performance hog by only running it when you're trying to do
> something else.
>
> (Not mine, but I don't know whose it is. :-)
>
...and only managing in making it a bigger performance hog.
I was plagued by an increasing system instability, slowdowns and disapearing
files. The 4 to 7 years old files where detected as virus less than 3 months old :-(
Uninstalled the AV and my performances jumped up and the crashings and freezings
went away.
Now to find another one that DON'T stay in memory and only scan when I ask it to.
--
Alain
-------------------------------------------------
Do you want to know who you are? Don't ask. Act! Action will delineate and
define you.
Thomas Jefferson
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Alain <ele### [at] netscapenet> wrote:
> The 4 to 7 years old files where detected as virus less than 3 months old :-(
Well, some executable virii infect files without modifying any of their
dates, so in theory it's possible they are infected.
(Nowadays it's rarer, though, because most virii are of the independent-exe
style and don't even bother infecting individual files.)
> Now to find another one that DON'T stay in memory and only scan when I ask it to.
Most AV software for Windows feel like a virus themselves: It's incredibly
difficult to get rid of them (without uninstalling them completely). They
will "infect" your entire system.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Alain wrote:
> Now to find another one that DON'T stay in memory and only scan when I
> ask it to.
Install avast AV, then go into the control panel and set the services to
"manual". You may need to go back and re-set the services to manual
after you update the executable. But it lets you do an on-demand scan
as you need it.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
It's not feature creep if you put it
at the end and adjust the release date.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Alain <ele### [at] netscapenet> wrote:
>> The 4 to 7 years old files where detected as virus less than 3 months old :-(
>
> Well, some executable virii infect files without modifying any of their
> dates, so in theory it's possible they are infected.
> (Nowadays it's rarer, though, because most virii are of the independent-exe
> style and don't even bother infecting individual files.)
I'm told in the old days, virii tried to actually, like, *hide*
themselves and stuff.
It seems these days their job is just to infect as many PC as possible
by emailing themselves to everybody within 50 feet with a blank email
containing CLICK_THIS.SUE_NAKED.GIF.GIF.EXE and then act as spam relay
bots...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v7 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> Alain wrote:
>
>
> Symantec is the product we're migrating off. My PC at work has something
> called Trend Micro. (Ever heard of that one? I hadn't.)
Iīve seen several instances where the AV, which is supposed to be protecting
your system, is actually causing more havoc than any virus. Most of these
instances have included products from Symantec or Trend Micro. Iīm sorry to say
that these products, which are heavily marketed and generally trusted, are
failing in the most fundamental ways.
The 2007 version of Trend Micro seems to include a bug that slows down system
performance seriously on any PC. Several friends and colleagues were
complaining about extremely long boot times (up to 20-25 minutes) and generally
slow performances on relatively fast PCīs. Something seemed to be eating up all
the RAM. In all cases this involved Trend Micro P-Cillin 2007 which I
uninstalled and replaced with Avast or F-Prot and every single one got back to
normal performance.
This performance problem seems to show up gradually, that is immediately after
installing TM everything is o.k., only after a certain amount of automatic
updates the problem starts.
My advice is stay away from these products, at least for now, until they have
fixed whatever the problem may be. I found out by searching the Internet that
people worldwide are having the same problem and no support or bug fix seems to
be available from this company, at least last time I checked.
Iīve been using Avast for over a year now, it does what itīs supposed to be
doing, silently keeping both my PCīs virus free. The only annoying feature is
that loud male voice informing you itīs been updated, making me jump a couple
of times. Just remember to keep the speaker volume down. :-)
Another common problem, make sure you only have ONE AV software installed at the
time. Having two or more is a killer on any PC.
Hildur
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp nous apporta ses lumieres en ce 2008/01/01 10:46:
> Alain <ele### [at] netscapenet> wrote:
>> The 4 to 7 years old files where detected as virus less than 3 months old :-(
>
> Well, some executable virii infect files without modifying any of their
> dates, so in theory it's possible they are infected.
> (Nowadays it's rarer, though, because most virii are of the independent-exe
> style and don't even bother infecting individual files.)
>
>> Now to find another one that DON'T stay in memory and only scan when I ask it to.
>
> Most AV software for Windows feel like a virus themselves: It's incredibly
> difficult to get rid of them (without uninstalling them completely). They
> will "infect" your entire system.
>
Old virus, in the old DOS days actualy injected themself into executables.
Modern virus inject themself into the OS by adding files that are the viran code
and planting hooks to start those files.
AVG detected several files as infected while they where completely legitimate
and healty.
Some samples of false positives:
AddAware 2007 (straight from lavasoft.de)
wbload.dll (main WindowBlinds file, straight from the developer's site)
skyrocket.scr (a 5 years old screen saver)
ares.exe (ares galaxy) while not finding anything wrong with the installer.
--
Alain
-------------------------------------------------
"If you see me running, try to keep up."
...Back of bomb technician's shirt
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Alain wrote:
> AVG detected several files as infected while they where completely
> legitimate and healty.
It can nuke your quickbooks (or quicken, I forget which) if you set it
to the highest paranoia level, too. Fixed with a full reinstall without
dataloss, tho - always know where you put the install disks for your
software. :-)
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
It's not feature creep if you put it
at the end and adjust the release date.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Iīve seen several instances where the AV, which is supposed to be protecting
> your system, is actually causing more havoc than any virus. Most of these
> instances have included products from Symantec or Trend Micro. Iīm sorry to say
> that these products, which are heavily marketed and generally trusted, are
> failing in the most fundamental ways.
I've seen my share of problems with *Norton* products. [Those things
really do take over your entire PC! And fail to uninstall, frequently...]
However, Symantec Antivirus Corporate Edition seems to be an entirely
different animal. If a corporate product popped up windows every 20
seconds saying "hey, you didn't do a full scan today" or "hey, shall I
update my definitions now?", it would be chucked out. *This* product is
about as unobtrusive as you could imagine for an AV product. I literally
hardly know it's there...
PS. Note that I have absolutely no *choice* in this matter anyway. :-S
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v7 nous apporta ses lumieres en ce 2008/01/02 13:17:
>> I´ve seen several instances where the AV, which is supposed to be
>> protecting
>> your system, is actually causing more havoc than any virus. Most of these
>> instances have included products from Symantec or Trend Micro. I´m
>> sorry to say
>> that these products, which are heavily marketed and generally trusted,
>> are
>> failing in the most fundamental ways.
>
> I've seen my share of problems with *Norton* products. [Those things
> really do take over your entire PC! And fail to uninstall, frequently...]
>
> However, Symantec Antivirus Corporate Edition seems to be an entirely
> different animal. If a corporate product popped up windows every 20
> seconds saying "hey, you didn't do a full scan today" or "hey, shall I
> update my definitions now?", it would be chucked out. *This* product is
> about as unobtrusive as you could imagine for an AV product. I literally
> hardly know it's there...
>
> PS. Note that I have absolutely no *choice* in this matter anyway. :-S
>
It's fundamentaly the same, only that the corporate edition is less visible when
cloging the system. It just don't anoy you with all those useless popups. It
does the full scans and updates on scedule, behind the scene without telling
you, but it adds some entries in a log file.
The reasoning is that the home user "need" to know that the AV is there and
doing it's job. OTOH, the business used need to NOT know that the AV is there,
as it's the job of the IT department and system manager.
--
Alain
-------------------------------------------------
Fundamentalism: Shit must be born again.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Alain wrote:
> It's fundamentaly the same, only that the corporate edition is less
> visible when cloging the system. It just don't anoy you with all those
> useless popups. It does the full scans and updates on scedule, behind
> the scene without telling you, but it adds some entries in a log file.
Indeed, it's so fundamentally the same that it doesn't even use the same
virus definition files. Oh, wait...
Also, I have yet to see it try to do a full scan. I could configure it
to do so, but this isn't even the default configuration, and I have no
intension of setting it to do this.
It seems to me the major difference between the home and corporate
versions is that in the corporate one, the administrator gets to
*decide* what the software should do. (And, as I've written, it doesn't
seem to be anywhere near as resource-hungry.)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v7 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> I've seen my share of problems with *Norton* products. [Those things
> really do take over your entire PC! And fail to uninstall, frequently...]
>
The reason they wonīt uninstall is a security feature, as some viruses will
attempt to uninstall your AV software. The problem is that the user isnīt
informed of this when trying to uninstall the software. A funny way to keep a
customer.
To uninstall you need to download and run a special -uninstall software- from
Symantecīs site. It takes a while and some Internet search to figure this out.
After uninstalling you are still stuck with the uninstall software on your hard
drive but it doesnīt get in the way so I guess itīs harmless.
This is also why Iīve seen several PCīs with more than one AV software
installed. People -thought- they already had gotten rid of *Norton* when they
installed another AV. Those machines run in slow mo.... like cutting through
syrup.
Hildur
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
The -real- reason I donīt use *Norton* -ever-!
Back in ī98 I bought my first own PC. It came bundled with some cdīs, one of
them labeled -Norton Antivirus-. After a few weeks of playing with my new toy I
naively decided to install the NAV, just to be one the safe side, even though I
didnīt have an Internet connection at the time.
Guess what! My hard drive got wiped out completely in an instant. I had to take
the PC back to the shop and get it reformatted and the OS reinstalled. They
told me I shouldnīt have installed this software as it was known to be buggy
and unstable??? Why they kept on including it with new PCīs was not explained.
Later I heard rumors about some unhappy programmer at Symantec, planting a virus
inside the NAV to get even with his bosses. Donīt know if this is true, or if
this was the reason I got my hard drive wiped, but this experience made me not
trust this brand name ever again. If true, they must have had a hard time
silencing the rumor.
But it makes you think, what kind of software wipes out you hard drive in matter
of seconds? Usually itīs called a virus!
(I think I still got the old NAV CD lying in a box somewhere. Maybe I should
scan it for viruses, just for the fun.)
They still got a very good web site, great virus database and lotīs of great
free virus specific -fixes- for infected PCīs. Mostly they are supposed to
correct the registry after infection and do some cleanup. Iīve tried some and
they actually worked.
Hildur
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
