Computer maintenance

B
Posted By
bagal
Dec 2, 2004
Views
1343
Replies
68
Status
Closed
Ahem … it has come to my attention that quite a few people has very sophisticated camera kit, very sophisticated software eg PSCS and very sophisticated computers.

But then? They experience performance hits, time lags and other troubles.

These may be avoided in many cases by some routine computer maintenance such as:

1 – anti virus facilities
2 – firewall facilities
and increasingly these last few days
3 – spy bot identifier and exorcisor
4 – registry cleaner

Possibly
5 – performance monitor & tweaker

I thought I’d mention it just in case it proves helpful to people out there

Aerticeus

ps – recommendations anyone?

A

Must-have mockup pack for every graphic designer 🔥🔥🔥

Easy-to-use drag-n-drop Photoshop scene creator with more than 2800 items.

P
Pattern-chaser
Dec 2, 2004
Aerticeus wrote:
These may be avoided in many cases by some routine computer maintenance
8< (snip)
ps – recommendations anyone?

I have found ‘spybot – search and destroy’ and ‘SpywareBlaster’ to be useful, and I used to use ‘Defendgate SmartFix’ until I installed Mozilla Thunderbird and Firefox as my email and browser. SmartFix kills them both stone dead as soon as I power them up! Oh well. BTW, these are all free downloads – check them out!

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"
Y
YAG-ART
Dec 2, 2004
On Thu, 02 Dec 2004 16:54:04 GMT, Aerticeus
wrote:

Ahem … it has come to my attention that quite a few people has very sophisticated camera kit, very sophisticated software eg PSCS and very sophisticated computers.

But then? They experience performance hits, time lags and other troubles.
These may be avoided in many cases by some routine computer maintenance such as:

1 – anti virus facilities
2 – firewall facilities
and increasingly these last few days
3 – spy bot identifier and exorcisor
4 – registry cleaner

Possibly
5 – performance monitor & tweaker

I thought I’d mention it just in case it proves helpful to people out there
Aerticeus

ps – recommendations anyone?

Defragment (yes even NTFS)
Y
YAG-ART
Dec 2, 2004
On Thu, 02 Dec 2004 17:06:33 +0000, Pattern-chaser
wrote:

Aerticeus wrote:
These may be avoided in many cases by some routine computer maintenance
8< (snip)
ps – recommendations anyone?

I have found ‘spybot – search and destroy’ and ‘SpywareBlaster’ to be useful, and I used to use ‘Defendgate SmartFix’ until I installed Mozilla Thunderbird and Firefox as my email and browser. SmartFix kills them both stone dead as soon as I power them up! Oh well. BTW, these are all free downloads – check them out!

Ad Adware does a better job for me tha SpyBot
F
Frank ess
Dec 2, 2004
YAG-ART wrote:
On Thu, 02 Dec 2004 17:06:33 +0000, Pattern-chaser
wrote:

Aerticeus wrote:
These may be avoided in many cases by some routine computer maintenance 8< (snip) ps – recommendations anyone?

I have found ‘spybot – search and destroy’ and ‘SpywareBlaster’ to be useful, and I used to use ‘Defendgate SmartFix’ until I installed Mozilla Thunderbird and Firefox as my email and browser. SmartFix kills them both stone dead as soon as I power them up! Oh well. BTW, these are all free downloads – check them out!

Ad Adware does a better job for me tha SpyBot

Download the latest v1.98.2 version of HijackThis:
http://aumha.org/downloads/hijackthis.exe
or
http://tools.radiosplace.com/HijackThis.exe


Frank ess
B
bagal
Dec 2, 2004
YAG-ART wrote:
On Thu, 02 Dec 2004 16:54:04 GMT, Aerticeus
wrote:

Ahem … it has come to my attention that quite a few people has very sophisticated camera kit, very sophisticated software eg PSCS and very sophisticated computers.

But then? They experience performance hits, time lags and other troubles.
These may be avoided in many cases by some routine computer maintenance such as:

1 – anti virus facilities
2 – firewall facilities
and increasingly these last few days
3 – spy bot identifier and exorcisor
4 – registry cleaner

Possibly
5 – performance monitor & tweaker

I thought I’d mention it just in case it proves helpful to people out there
Aerticeus

ps – recommendations anyone?

Defragment (yes even NTFS)
Groovy!

For what it is worth

I have switched to Firefox and Thunderbird for NGs only – my PDA works too darn well with Outlook)

And cannot believe the performance uprate.

CCleaner, Spyblaster and Spybot – search and destroy (all freebies) seem to have given this ‘pooter a new lease of life

Aerticeus
J
JD
Dec 2, 2004
Aerticeus wrote:

YAG-ART wrote:

On Thu, 02 Dec 2004 16:54:04 GMT, Aerticeus
wrote:

Ahem … it has come to my attention that quite a few people has very sophisticated camera kit, very sophisticated software eg PSCS and very sophisticated computers.

But then? They experience performance hits, time lags and other troubles.

These may be avoided in many cases by some routine computer maintenance such as:

1 – anti virus facilities
2 – firewall facilities
and increasingly these last few days
3 – spy bot identifier and exorcisor
4 – registry cleaner

Possibly
5 – performance monitor & tweaker

I thought I’d mention it just in case it proves helpful to people out there

Aerticeus

ps – recommendations anyone?

Defragment (yes even NTFS)

Groovy!

For what it is worth

I have switched to Firefox and Thunderbird for NGs only – my PDA works too darn well with Outlook)

And cannot believe the performance uprate.

CCleaner, Spyblaster and Spybot – search and destroy (all freebies) seem to have given this ‘pooter a new lease of life

Aerticeus

Any problems with the CCleaner?



JD..
J
JD
Dec 2, 2004
Aerticeus wrote:

YAG-ART wrote:

On Thu, 02 Dec 2004 16:54:04 GMT, Aerticeus
wrote:

Ahem … it has come to my attention that quite a few people has very sophisticated camera kit, very sophisticated software eg PSCS and very sophisticated computers.

But then? They experience performance hits, time lags and other troubles.

These may be avoided in many cases by some routine computer maintenance such as:

1 – anti virus facilities
2 – firewall facilities
and increasingly these last few days
3 – spy bot identifier and exorcisor
4 – registry cleaner

Possibly
5 – performance monitor & tweaker

I thought I’d mention it just in case it proves helpful to people out there

Aerticeus

ps – recommendations anyone?

Defragment (yes even NTFS)

Groovy!

For what it is worth

I have switched to Firefox and Thunderbird for NGs only – my PDA works too darn well with Outlook)

And cannot believe the performance uprate.

CCleaner, Spyblaster and Spybot – search and destroy (all freebies) seem to have given this ‘pooter a new lease of life

Aerticeus

Any problems with CCleaner?



JD..
DD
Don Dunlap
Dec 2, 2004
"YAG-ART" wrote in message
On Thu, 02 Dec 2004 17:06:33 +0000, Pattern-chaser
wrote:

Aerticeus wrote:
These may be avoided in many cases by some routine computer maintenance
8< (snip)
ps – recommendations anyone?

I have found ‘spybot – search and destroy’ and ‘SpywareBlaster’ to be useful, and I used to use ‘Defendgate SmartFix’ until I installed Mozilla Thunderbird and Firefox as my email and browser. SmartFix kills them both stone dead as soon as I power them up! Oh well. BTW, these are all free downloads – check them out!

Ad Adware does a better job for me tha SpyBot

That’s strange – I have just the opposite results. The last time I tried to update Adware though, I got a rejection that it couldn’t find the URL. Are they out of commission? I usually run both just to be on the safe side.

Don Dunlap
KW
Ken Weitzel
Dec 2, 2004
Don Dunlap wrote:
"YAG-ART" wrote in message

On Thu, 02 Dec 2004 17:06:33 +0000, Pattern-chaser
wrote:

Aerticeus wrote:

These may be avoided in many cases by some routine computer maintenance

8< (snip)

ps – recommendations anyone?

I have found ‘spybot – search and destroy’ and ‘SpywareBlaster’ to be useful, and I used to use ‘Defendgate SmartFix’ until I installed Mozilla Thunderbird and Firefox as my email and browser. SmartFix kills them both stone dead as soon as I power them up! Oh well. BTW, these are all free downloads – check them out!

Ad Adware does a better job for me tha SpyBot

That’s strange – I have just the opposite results. The last time I tried to update Adware though, I got a rejection that it couldn’t find the URL. Are they out of commission? I usually run both just to be on the safe side.
Don Dunlap

Hi Don…

Sounds like you haven’t yet upgraded to Adaware SE…

Take care.

Ken
DD
Don Dunlap
Dec 2, 2004
"Ken Weitzel" wrote in message
Don Dunlap wrote:
"YAG-ART" wrote in message

On Thu, 02 Dec 2004 17:06:33 +0000, Pattern-chaser
wrote:

Aerticeus wrote:

These may be avoided in many cases by some routine computer maintenance

8< (snip)

ps – recommendations anyone?

I have found ‘spybot – search and destroy’ and ‘SpywareBlaster’ to be useful, and I used to use ‘Defendgate SmartFix’ until I installed Mozilla Thunderbird and Firefox as my email and browser. SmartFix kills them both stone dead as soon as I power them up! Oh well. BTW, these are all free downloads – check them out!

Ad Adware does a better job for me tha SpyBot

That’s strange – I have just the opposite results. The last time I tried to update Adware though, I got a rejection that it couldn’t find the URL. Are they out of commission? I usually run both just to be on the safe side.

Don Dunlap

Hi Don…

Sounds like you haven’t yet upgraded to Adaware SE…

Take care.

Ken

No I haven’t! I try that now.

Thanks
Don Dunlap
EG
Eric Gill
Dec 2, 2004
Aerticeus wrote in
news:MMHrd.679$:

Ahem … it has come to my attention that quite a few people has very sophisticated camera kit, very sophisticated software eg PSCS and very sophisticated computers.

But then? They experience performance hits, time lags and other troubles.

Most of them related to Photoshop CS, apparently.

I’ve noticed a severe problem with the Windows swapfile blowing up in 2.4 gigs pluswhile CS is working, then not downsizing after CS exits. Systemwide performance than drops into the toilet.

The same behavior is not apparent when running PS 7.01.

In addition to the known conflicts with Antivirus and utilities such as the Norton recycle bin, it’s looks like PSCS has some memory issues, especially on systems with gobs of RAM.
EG
Eric Gill
Dec 2, 2004
YAG-ART wrote in
news::

On Thu, 02 Dec 2004 17:06:33 +0000, Pattern-chaser
wrote:

Aerticeus wrote:
These may be avoided in many cases by some routine computer maintenance
8< (snip)
ps – recommendations anyone?

I have found ‘spybot – search and destroy’ and ‘SpywareBlaster’ to be useful, and I used to use ‘Defendgate SmartFix’ until I installed Mozilla Thunderbird and Firefox as my email and browser. SmartFix kills them both stone dead as soon as I power them up! Oh well. BTW, these are all free downloads – check them out!

Ad Adware does a better job for me tha SpyBot

While I’ve found that to be true, I’ve also found running one, then the other, is better yet.

Hell, occasionally I find a nasty that neither can remove. Fortunately, not on my machines. It’s amazing what not using Outlook and Internet Explorer can do for your security.
B
bagal
Dec 2, 2004
JD wrote:
Aerticeus wrote:

YAG-ART wrote:

On Thu, 02 Dec 2004 16:54:04 GMT, Aerticeus
wrote:

Ahem … it has come to my attention that quite a few people has very sophisticated camera kit, very sophisticated software eg PSCS and very sophisticated computers.

But then? They experience performance hits, time lags and other troubles.

These may be avoided in many cases by some routine computer maintenance such as:

1 – anti virus facilities
2 – firewall facilities
and increasingly these last few days
3 – spy bot identifier and exorcisor
4 – registry cleaner

Possibly
5 – performance monitor & tweaker

I thought I’d mention it just in case it proves helpful to people out there

Aerticeus

ps – recommendations anyone?

Defragment (yes even NTFS)

Groovy!

For what it is worth

I have switched to Firefox and Thunderbird for NGs only – my PDA works too darn well with Outlook)

And cannot believe the performance uprate.

CCleaner, Spyblaster and Spybot – search and destroy (all freebies) seem to have given this ‘pooter a new lease of life

Aerticeus

Any problems with CCleaner?
Hi JD

Not a sausage

I took it steadily and had about 3 pages (or more!) of registry updates or revisions.

It gaives the option to save a copy of the registry – BUT and it is a great B-I-G Aerticulean B-U-T

I aint gonna accept any responsibility if things go wrong on other peoples computers. If other people wanna run it it is their full responsibility

Anyways, I started off cautiously (as one does) found it too much of a chore (as one does) then revised the whole lot at one go. There was stuff there that had been deleted yonks ago…

I hope this helps JD

Aerticeus
Y
YAG-ART
Dec 2, 2004
On Thu, 2 Dec 2004 14:10:09 -0500, "Don Dunlap" wrote:

"YAG-ART" wrote in message
On Thu, 02 Dec 2004 17:06:33 +0000, Pattern-chaser
wrote:

Aerticeus wrote:
These may be avoided in many cases by some routine computer maintenance
8< (snip)
ps – recommendations anyone?

I have found ‘spybot – search and destroy’ and ‘SpywareBlaster’ to be useful, and I used to use ‘Defendgate SmartFix’ until I installed Mozilla Thunderbird and Firefox as my email and browser. SmartFix kills them both stone dead as soon as I power them up! Oh well. BTW, these are all free downloads – check them out!

Ad Adware does a better job for me tha SpyBot

That’s strange – I have just the opposite results. The last time I tried to update Adware though, I got a rejection that it couldn’t find the URL. Are they out of commission? I usually run both just to be on the safe side.

I didn’t have any problems. Are you running Ad Adware SE?
DD
Don Dunlap
Dec 2, 2004
"Don Dunlap" wrote in message
"Ken Weitzel" wrote in message
Don Dunlap wrote:
"YAG-ART" wrote in message

On Thu, 02 Dec 2004 17:06:33 +0000, Pattern-chaser
wrote:

Aerticeus wrote:

These may be avoided in many cases by some routine computer maintenance

8< (snip)

ps – recommendations anyone?

I have found ‘spybot – search and destroy’ and ‘SpywareBlaster’ to be useful, and I used to use ‘Defendgate SmartFix’ until I installed Mozilla Thunderbird and Firefox as my email and browser. SmartFix kills them both stone dead as soon as I power them up! Oh well. BTW, these are
all free downloads – check them out!

Ad Adware does a better job for me tha SpyBot

That’s strange – I have just the opposite results. The last time I tried to update Adware though, I got a rejection that it couldn’t find the URL. Are they out of commission? I usually run both just to be on the safe side.

Don Dunlap

Hi Don…

Sounds like you haven’t yet upgraded to Adaware SE…

Take care.

Ken

No I haven’t! I try that now.

Thanks
Don Dunlap
Ken,

I downloaded it and tried it. It found two questionable files that it flagged and no one else had found. They were not a problem though, since I knew what they were, but at least it was more discriminating than before.

Thanks
Don
DD
Don Dunlap
Dec 2, 2004
"YAG-ART" wrote in message
On Thu, 2 Dec 2004 14:10:09 -0500, "Don Dunlap" wrote:

"YAG-ART" wrote in message
On Thu, 02 Dec 2004 17:06:33 +0000, Pattern-chaser
wrote:

Aerticeus wrote:
These may be avoided in many cases by some routine computer maintenance
8< (snip)
ps – recommendations anyone?

I have found ‘spybot – search and destroy’ and ‘SpywareBlaster’ to be useful, and I used to use ‘Defendgate SmartFix’ until I installed Mozilla Thunderbird and Firefox as my email and browser. SmartFix kills them both stone dead as soon as I power them up! Oh well. BTW, these are all free downloads – check them out!

Ad Adware does a better job for me tha SpyBot

That’s strange – I have just the opposite results. The last time I tried to
update Adware though, I got a rejection that it couldn’t find the URL. Are
they out of commission? I usually run both just to be on the safe side.

I didn’t have any problems. Are you running Ad Adware SE?

I was just pointed to it. I have downloaded it and used it.

Thanks
Don
PJ
Paul J Gans
Dec 2, 2004
In rec.photo.digital Eric Gill wrote:
Aerticeus wrote in
news:MMHrd.679$:

Ahem … it has come to my attention that quite a few people has very sophisticated camera kit, very sophisticated software eg PSCS and very sophisticated computers.

But then? They experience performance hits, time lags and other troubles.

Most of them related to Photoshop CS, apparently.

I’ve noticed a severe problem with the Windows swapfile blowing up in 2.4 gigs pluswhile CS is working, then not downsizing after CS exits. Systemwide performance than drops into the toilet.

The same behavior is not apparent when running PS 7.01.

In addition to the known conflicts with Antivirus and utilities such as the Norton recycle bin, it’s looks like PSCS has some memory issues, especially on systems with gobs of RAM.

Hmm. I’ve got a gig of memory on a 2.8 Ghz machine
with 4 gigs of swap. I’ve had no issues with PSCS.
Indeed I love it.

—- Paul J. Gans
L
lkrz
Dec 3, 2004
Ad Adware does a better job for me tha SpyBot

That’s strange – I have just the opposite results. The last time I tried to update Adware though, I got a rejection that it couldn’t find the URL. Are they out of commission? I usually run both just to be on the safe side.

They look for different things. You should run both. Also Spyware Blaster. http://www.javacoolsoftware.com
All are free. I run all three without any problems.
Hijack this! is a great tool. After using it to get everything cleaned up, get in the habit of running it once a day to catch anything new that sneaks in. There’s a good registry cleaner here:
http://www.rosecitysoftware.com/Reg1Aid/
You can keep up with what’s trying to get into your computer and how to keep it out/get it out here:
http://computercops.biz/forums.html

http://www.madmousergraphics.com
web design, print design, photography
H
Hecate
Dec 3, 2004
On Thu, 02 Dec 2004 16:54:04 GMT, Aerticeus
wrote:

Ahem … it has come to my attention that quite a few people has very sophisticated camera kit, very sophisticated software eg PSCS and very sophisticated computers.

But then? They experience performance hits, time lags and other troubles.
These may be avoided in many cases by some routine computer maintenance such as:

1 – anti virus facilities

NOD32

2 – firewall facilities

Outpost

and increasingly these last few days
3 – spy bot identifier and exorcisor

Spy Sweeper or SpyBot Search and Destroy plus Adaware (Spysweeper will deal with Spysweeper AND adware – S&D is really best for spyware, and Adaware for adware, so you need them both if you go that route).

4 – registry cleaner

Common sense

Possibly
5 – performance monitor & tweaker

www.sysinternals.com for lots of useful free apps

I thought I’d mention it just in case it proves helpful to people out there
Aerticeus

ps – recommendations anyone?
As above.



Hecate – The Real One

veni, vidi, reliqui
H
Hecate
Dec 3, 2004
On Thu, 02 Dec 2004 17:06:33 +0000, Pattern-chaser
wrote:

Aerticeus wrote:
These may be avoided in many cases by some routine computer maintenance
8< (snip)
ps – recommendations anyone?

I have found ‘spybot – search and destroy’ and ‘SpywareBlaster’ to be useful, and I used to use ‘Defendgate SmartFix’ until I installed Mozilla Thunderbird and Firefox as my email and browser. SmartFix kills them both stone dead as soon as I power them up! Oh well. BTW, these are all free downloads – check them out!
That’s because they use hidden processes which SmartFix blocks.



Hecate – The Real One

veni, vidi, reliqui
H
Hecate
Dec 3, 2004
On Thu, 2 Dec 2004 14:10:09 -0500, "Don Dunlap" wrote:

"YAG-ART" wrote in message
On Thu, 02 Dec 2004 17:06:33 +0000, Pattern-chaser
wrote:

Aerticeus wrote:
These may be avoided in many cases by some routine computer maintenance
8< (snip)
ps – recommendations anyone?

I have found ‘spybot – search and destroy’ and ‘SpywareBlaster’ to be useful, and I used to use ‘Defendgate SmartFix’ until I installed Mozilla Thunderbird and Firefox as my email and browser. SmartFix kills them both stone dead as soon as I power them up! Oh well. BTW, these are all free downloads – check them out!

Ad Adware does a better job for me tha SpyBot

That’s strange – I have just the opposite results. The last time I tried to update Adware though, I got a rejection that it couldn’t find the URL. Are they out of commission? I usually run both just to be on the safe side.
Adaware is better at catching Adware. SS&D is better at catching Spyware – if you don’t use something better than either, you need both.



Hecate – The Real One

veni, vidi, reliqui
H
Hecate
Dec 3, 2004
On Thu, 02 Dec 2004 19:59:24 GMT, Eric Gill
wrote:

Hell, occasionally I find a nasty that neither can remove. Fortunately, not on my machines. It’s amazing what not using Outlook and Internet Explorer can do for your security.

Actually, the security in Outlook 2003 is miles better. If you set it up right of course. However, by default it won’t download any that’s a binary except html or rtf. And you can kill that by setting it up to only show text. Plus it won’t allow the opening of any attachment without you explicitly clicking and then selecting open – and it then still asks you if you’d rather save to disk first. This function can also be blocked so that no attachments can be opened without an administrator permission. We actually swapped back to using it so we could use the excellent InBoxer spam control.

Of course, you still need a full armoury of AV, firewall etc.

And IE is still a nightmare 🙂



Hecate – The Real One

veni, vidi, reliqui
EG
Eric Gill
Dec 3, 2004
Paul J Gans wrote in
news:coo0tr$kh4$:

In rec.photo.digital Eric Gill wrote:
Aerticeus wrote in
news:MMHrd.679$:

Ahem … it has come to my attention that quite a few people has very sophisticated camera kit, very sophisticated software eg PSCS and very sophisticated computers.

But then? They experience performance hits, time lags and other troubles.

Most of them related to Photoshop CS, apparently.

I’ve noticed a severe problem with the Windows swapfile blowing up in
2.4 gigs pluswhile CS is working, then not downsizing after CS exits.
Systemwide performance than drops into the toilet.

The same behavior is not apparent when running PS 7.01.

In addition to the known conflicts with Antivirus and utilities such as the Norton recycle bin, it’s looks like PSCS has some memory issues, especially on systems with gobs of RAM.

Hmm. I’ve got a gig of memory

C’mon, Paul- that’s a drop in the bucket anymore.

Seriously, it’s 2+ gig machines that seem to see most problems.

on a 2.8 Ghz machine
with 4 gigs of swap. I’ve had no issues with PSCS.
Indeed I love it.

I like the new features. The problems I’ve experienced are something else altogether.
BC
Bill Crocker
Dec 3, 2004
Excellent advice! One more thing to add to the list…defragment the hard drive.

Bill Crocker

"Aerticeus" wrote in message
Ahem … it has come to my attention that quite a few people has very sophisticated camera kit, very sophisticated software eg PSCS and very sophisticated computers.

But then? They experience performance hits, time lags and other troubles.
These may be avoided in many cases by some routine computer maintenance such as:

1 – anti virus facilities
2 – firewall facilities
and increasingly these last few days
3 – spy bot identifier and exorcisor
4 – registry cleaner

Possibly
5 – performance monitor & tweaker

I thought I’d mention it just in case it proves helpful to people out there

Aerticeus

ps – recommendations anyone?

A
M
MarkH
Dec 3, 2004
Aerticeus wrote in
news:qsJrd.556$:

I have switched to Firefox and Thunderbird for NGs only – my PDA works too darn well with Outlook)

Nothing wrong with Outlook (the only real problem I’ve seen is the horrible Outlook 97). Outlook 2003 works very well and is safe to use.

On the other hand IE is complete crap! I only use Mozilla and am damn glad of it. IE will mess your computer up. IE will mess you life up. IE will sleep with your wife. IE will kick your dog. IE will drink the last beer in the fridge.

IE is evil incarnate.


Mark Heyes (New Zealand)
See my pics at www.gigatech.co.nz (last updated 12-Nov-04) "There are 10 types of people, those that
understand binary and those that don’t"
HP
helmut.p.einfaltNOSPAM
Dec 3, 2004
MarkH wrote:
On the other hand IE is complete crap! I only use Mozilla and am damn glad of it. IE will mess your computer up. IE will mess you life up. IE will sleep with your wife. IE will kick your dog. IE will drink the last beer in the fridge.

I’ve come to grips with IE after divorcing and taking the beer out of the fridge and into the basement….

Helmut

All typos © My Knotty Fingers Ltd. Capacity Dept.
BH
Bob Haar
Dec 3, 2004
On 2004/12/2 11:54 AM, "Aerticeus" wrote:

These may be avoided in many cases by some routine computer maintenance such as:

1 – anti virus facilities
2 – firewall facilities
and increasingly these last few days
3 – spy bot identifier and exorcisor
4 – registry cleaner

Possibly
5 – performance monitor & tweaker

Adding RAM is often a useful step to improve performance, watching trends in a performance monitor can tell you if this is needed.

ps – recommendations anyone?

Reading between the lines, it sounds like you assumed a MS Windows platform. I find that getting away from MS products removes many of the concerns. Replace IE with Firefox and Outlook/OE with a non-MS email client eliminates the many of the common security weaknesses there. Going to a Mac or LINUX platform does the same at the OS level.
J
JD
Dec 3, 2004
Aerticeus wrote:
JD wrote:

Aerticeus wrote:
snip<
CCleaner, Spyblaster and Spybot – search and destroy (all freebies) seem to have given this ‘pooter a new lease of life

Aerticeus

Any problems with CCleaner?
Hi JD

Not a sausage

I took it steadily and had about 3 pages (or more!) of registry updates or revisions.

It gaives the option to save a copy of the registry – BUT and it is a great B-I-G Aerticulean B-U-T

I aint gonna accept any responsibility if things go wrong on other peoples computers. If other people wanna run it it is their full responsibility

Anyways, I started off cautiously (as one does) found it too much of a chore (as one does) then revised the whole lot at one go. There was stuff there that had been deleted yonks ago…

I hope this helps JD

Aerticeus

CCleaner was a little too automatic for me. But I understand what you’re saying. What works for Aerticeus may not work for JD.



JD..
L
look
Dec 3, 2004
IE is evil incarnate.

Not since Service Pack 2; IE is now, in my opinion, safer than Opera.
S
Scruff
Dec 3, 2004
I have done a tremendous amount of research to find what works best for me. I have 5 puters networked together. I use:
-Ad Aware SE professional
-Ad Watch SE (bundled with the above)
-Spyware Blaster
-Spybot Search and Destroy
-Norton Anti-Virus (which I don’t particularly like)

I NEVER have a problem, EVER!
My main puter is a P4 with 1 gig ram, so they can all run without clogging anything.
If I had to use just one along with Norton, it would be the Adaware SE.

"YAG-ART" wrote in message
On Thu, 02 Dec 2004 16:54:04 GMT, Aerticeus
wrote:

Ahem … it has come to my attention that quite a few people has very sophisticated camera kit, very sophisticated software eg PSCS and very sophisticated computers.

But then? They experience performance hits, time lags and other
troubles.
These may be avoided in many cases by some routine computer maintenance such as:

1 – anti virus facilities
2 – firewall facilities
and increasingly these last few days
3 – spy bot identifier and exorcisor
4 – registry cleaner

Possibly
5 – performance monitor & tweaker

I thought I’d mention it just in case it proves helpful to people out
there
Aerticeus

ps – recommendations anyone?

Defragment (yes even NTFS)
T
tacitr
Dec 3, 2004
ps – recommendations anyone?

Never do production work on a PC. Use a Mac. Zero viruses, zero spyware, zero adware, no Registry, no trojans.


Art, literature, shareware, polyamory, kink, and more:
http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html
T
tacitr
Dec 3, 2004
Hell, occasionally I find a nasty that neither can remove. Fortunately, not on my machines. It’s amazing what not using Outlook and Internet Explorer can do for your security.

Yep. I found a nasty neither could remove–a variant on VX2–on my girlfriend’s computer some weeks ago, and spent about six hours tracing where it came from, how it got installed on her computer, and where the money went. It’s surprising how much money there is in spyware and adware, and even more surprising who is making the money.

If you’re interested, I posted a detailed description of how it was installed and (more importantly) who made money from it at

http://www.livejournal.com/users/tacit/125748.html


Art, literature, shareware, polyamory, kink, and more:
http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html
T
tacitr
Dec 3, 2004
Actually, the security in Outlook 2003 is miles better. If you set it up right of course. However, by default it won’t download any that’s a binary except html or rtf. And you can kill that by setting it up to only show text.

Can you set it to never show HTML messages and never load remote images in HTML messages yet? Earlier versions of Outlook you can set to never CREATE HTML messages, but they alays SHOW HTML messages–which is a huge security problem, because spammers will embed references to one-pixel transparent GIF files in the HTML. When you hit the spammer’s server to loead the image, the spammer has a record of your email address and the date and time you looked at the message.

Plus it won’t allow the opening of any attachment
without you explicitly clicking and then selecting open – and it then still asks you if you’d rather save to disk first.

You can still make Outlook download a file automatically, without asking the user and without telling the user, by using the same iFrame exploit that you use to cause Explorer to download a file without the user’s knowledge. (Or at least you could until last Tuesday, when the iFrame exploit patch was *finally* released by Microsoft–I bet a lot of people still have not installed the patch.)

And IE is still a nightmare 🙂

Outlook uses the IE rendering libraries. An exploit that works in IE–the iFrame exploit, the cross-site scripting vulnerability, and so on–can often be made to work in Outlook as well.

Security in Outlook is a sick joke.


Art, literature, shareware, polyamory, kink, and more:
http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html
B
bhilton665
Dec 3, 2004
From: (Tacit)

Yep. I found a nasty neither could remove–a variant on VX2–on my girlfriend’s computer some weeks ago, and spent about six hours tracing where it came from, how it got installed on her computer, and where the money went. It’s surprising how much money there is in spyware and adware, and even more surprising who
is making the money.

If you’re interested, I posted a detailed description of how it was installed and (more importantly) who made money from it at

http://www.livejournal.com/users/tacit/125748.html

Fascinating stuff! Thanks for posting the link.
B
bagal
Dec 3, 2004
Bill Hilton wrote:
From: (Tacit)

Yep. I found a nasty neither could remove–a variant on VX2–on my girlfriend’s computer some weeks ago, and spent about six hours tracing where it came from, how it got installed on her computer, and where the money went. It’s surprising how much money there is in spyware and adware, and even more surprising who
is making the money.

If you’re interested, I posted a detailed description of how it was installed and (more importantly) who made money from it at

http://www.livejournal.com/users/tacit/125748.html

Fascinating stuff! Thanks for posting the link.
yup thanks Tacit

A
S
Scruff
Dec 3, 2004
"Tacit" wrote in message
ps – recommendations anyone?

Never do production work on a PC. Use a Mac. Zero viruses, zero spyware,
zero
adware, no Registry, no trojans.
Or have a clue as to what you are doing.
I remember when you had to have a mac to function in the puter world. Now it is quite the opposite.
H
Hecate
Dec 4, 2004
On 03 Dec 2004 16:46:06 GMT, (Tacit) wrote:

Actually, the security in Outlook 2003 is miles better. If you set it up right of course. However, by default it won’t download any that’s a binary except html or rtf. And you can kill that by setting it up to only show text.

Can you set it to never show HTML messages and never load remote images in HTML messages yet?

Yes. you can set it to only allow plain text. And it never downloads images in mails without you explicitly right clicking on an image and telling it to do so.
Earlier versions of Outlook you can set to never CREATE HTML messages, but they alays SHOW HTML messages–which is a huge security problem, because spammers will embed references to one-pixel transparent GIF files in the HTML. When you hit the spammer’s server to loead the image, the spammer has a record of your email address and the date and time you looked at the message.

Correct. No longer works in Outlook.

Plus it won’t allow the opening of any attachment
without you explicitly clicking and then selecting open – and it then still asks you if you’d rather save to disk first.

You can still make Outlook download a file automatically, without asking the user and without telling the user, by using the same iFrame exploit that you use to cause Explorer to download a file without the user’s knowledge. (Or at least you could until last Tuesday, when the iFrame exploit patch was *finally* released by Microsoft–I bet a lot of people still have not installed the patch.)
Not on my machine. I have that blocked in the firewall, but yes, for people that aren’t security conscious..

And IE is still a nightmare 🙂

Outlook uses the IE rendering libraries. An exploit that works in IE–the iFrame exploit, the cross-site scripting vulnerability, and so on–can often be made to work in Outlook as well.

Security in Outlook is a sick joke.

Some things yes, others no. It really depends on your firewall. Which is why I said a properly secured system. Personally, I, and a lot of others, now have no problem with using Outlook, and are getting no problems from it. YMMV.



Hecate – The Real One

veni, vidi, reliqui
H
Hecate
Dec 4, 2004
On Fri, 03 Dec 2004 08:22:07 GMT, MarkH wrote:

Aerticeus wrote in
news:qsJrd.556$:

I have switched to Firefox and Thunderbird for NGs only – my PDA works too darn well with Outlook)

Nothing wrong with Outlook (the only real problem I’ve seen is the horrible Outlook 97). Outlook 2003 works very well and is safe to use.
On the other hand IE is complete crap! I only use Mozilla and am damn glad of it. IE will mess your computer up. IE will mess you life up. IE will sleep with your wife. IE will kick your dog. IE will drink the last beer in the fridge.

IE is evil incarnate.

LOL! Yep 🙂

BTW, not that I’ve come across one in a long time, but there’s an extension for Firefox that will allow you to right click and "view in IE" for any misbehaving sites you come across. 🙂



Hecate – The Real One

veni, vidi, reliqui
H
Hecate
Dec 4, 2004
On 03 Dec 2004 16:36:14 GMT, (Tacit) wrote:

ps – recommendations anyone?

Never do production work on a PC. Use a Mac. Zero viruses, zero spyware, zero adware, no Registry, no trojans.

However, 95% of th3e world uses a PC and does fine…



Hecate – The Real One

veni, vidi, reliqui
H
Hecate
Dec 4, 2004
On 03 Dec 2004 16:40:36 GMT, (Tacit) wrote:

Hell, occasionally I find a nasty that neither can remove. Fortunately, not on my machines. It’s amazing what not using Outlook and Internet Explorer can do for your security.

Yep. I found a nasty neither could remove–a variant on VX2–on my girlfriend’s computer some weeks ago, and spent about six hours tracing where it came from, how it got installed on her computer, and where the money went. It’s surprising how much money there is in spyware and adware, and even more surprising who is making the money.

If you’re interested, I posted a detailed description of how it was installed and (more importantly) who made money from it at

http://www.livejournal.com/users/tacit/125748.html

Interesting. However, you have warnings plastered all over the page so, tell me, exactly how do you get infected with a proper firewall and running AV, anti malware and anti Trojan software? I’d be interested in the technical details which you, unfortunately, didn’t provide.

Next thing – you mention that it all seems to be Canadian – it may well be in this case, but the majority of spam/malware/exploits emanates from Florida. In and around a place called Boca Raton in fact. (I’ve seen estimates for spam origination from there as high as 90%). In fact, the vast majority of spam/malware/exploits we receive in the UK can be traced back to the US, and mostly to Florida.

I’ve come across Rackspace before causing problems. As you say, they have their own blacklist entry.



Hecate – The Real One

veni, vidi, reliqui
L
lkrz
Dec 4, 2004
Interesting. However, you have warnings plastered all over the page so, tell me, exactly how do you get infected with a proper firewall and running AV, anti malware and anti Trojan software? I’d be interested in the technical details which you, unfortunately, didn’t provide.

There’s good information — and links to more — here:
http://computercops.biz/postt7736.html
I had some very nasty malware come in on ActiveX, until I changed my security setting to always ask before running. Yes, it’s a nuisance but less of a hassle than spending time cleaning the junk out of my computer. I downloaded an update to Shockwave the other day and it automatically installed a Yahoo toolbar. Seems that some time ago I had checked the "always trust Macromedia" box and now it doesn’t ask if I want any other junk installed with a Macromedia download. I did whip off a nasty note to Macromedia after that.
Another exploit uses a corrupted jpg to fool the computer into executing it as a program.
http://www.tech-recipes.com/windows_tips690.html
You need to remember that you don’t look at stuff on the web. You look at stuff that has been downloaded to your computer from the web.

the vast majority of spam/malware/exploits we receive
in the UK can be traced back to the US, and mostly to Florida.

One of the nastiest, coolweb, is Russian.
http://www.spywareguide.com/product_show.php?id=599

http://www.madmousergraphics.com
web design, print design, photography
DD
David Dyer-Bennet
Dec 4, 2004
(Tacit) writes:

ps – recommendations anyone?

Never do production work on a PC. Use a Mac. Zero viruses, zero spyware, zero adware, no Registry, no trojans.

The Macs the developers had at MultiLogic caused us far more maintenance hassles than the PCs used by the software developers and the rest of the staff. And cost nearly twice as much, and had to be replaced much sooner with machines costing even more than twice as much. And had all sorts of software interoperability limitations that kept biting us (like no usable calendaring that worked for both sides, let alone connected to project scheduling; and a very expensive and hard-to-use interface to the source control tool).

So my one opportunity to watch them side-by-side confirmed my more distant experiences, saying that for most applications it’s a bad idea to have Macs at all.

David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:>
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/> Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/> Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>
D
davem
Dec 4, 2004
Hecate writes:

BTW, not that I’ve come across one in a long time, but there’s an extension for Firefox that will allow you to right click and "view in IE" for any misbehaving sites you come across. 🙂

I generally figure anything that doesn’t display correctly in Firefox is not that interesting anyway. The one exception: I still use Internet Exploder is when I visit windowsupdate.com.

Dave
M
MarkH
Dec 4, 2004
"Michael A. Covington"
wrote in news:41b0801c$:

IE is evil incarnate.

Not since Service Pack 2; IE is now, in my opinion, safer than Opera.

I’ve never used Opera and never new it was that unsafe, thanks for the tip, I’ll be sure to avoid it.

I have read reviews that say that even after SP2, IE is still horribly unsafe (though a little less than it used to be).

I think I’ll stick with Mozilla at this stage. I really like the tabbed browsing as well as how the popup blocker works.


Mark Heyes (New Zealand)
See my pics at www.gigatech.co.nz (last updated 12-Nov-04) "There are 10 types of people, those that
understand binary and those that don’t"
DD
Don Dunlap
Dec 4, 2004
"MarkH" wrote in message
"Michael A. Covington"
wrote in news:41b0801c$:

IE is evil incarnate.

Not since Service Pack 2; IE is now, in my opinion, safer than Opera.

I’ve never used Opera and never new it was that unsafe, thanks for the tip,
I’ll be sure to avoid it.

I have read reviews that say that even after SP2, IE is still horribly unsafe (though a little less than it used to be).

I think I’ll stick with Mozilla at this stage. I really like the tabbed browsing as well as how the popup blocker works.


Mark Heyes (New Zealand)
See my pics at www.gigatech.co.nz (last updated 12-Nov-04) "There are 10 types of people, those that
understand binary and those that don’t"
I just switched over to Mozilla, but I did notice that Microsoft hasn’t come out with a single update since SP2. I believe that is the longest I have ever seen them go without an update. I can’t remember the exact date that SP2 came out, but it has been a couple of months I think.

Don Dunlap
S
Scruff
Dec 4, 2004
"David Dyer-Bennet" wrote in message
(Tacit) writes:
So my one opportunity to watch them side-by-side confirmed my more distant experiences, saying that for most applications it’s a bad idea to have Macs at all.

I agree. Most mac users are stuck in the past or stuck with them at a schools or businesses because of contracts. Older ad agencies or photo related businesses are just too buried in mac technology to change. Just because macs were the first to be used for design and film oriented programs the die hards still think they’re best.
Now that most publishers don’t need film supplied and can accept hi-res pdf files, macs are dying the slow death. I use a pc and haven’t had to send anything to a film house in over 2 years. The customer saves money AND I make more.
Seems like yesterday that I would make an ad on my pc, bring it to a film house, they would have to "convert" it to a mac file, and I’d pray it looked ok (never did). That was film houses attempt to adapt. Now they’re obsolete. What a difference from the waxed type and paste up boards. Most people here probably never used those, lol. Shows you how things change. I used to feel like an outcast using a pc, now I feel like I was a pioneer. Gotta love it.
EG
Eric Gill
Dec 4, 2004
"Michael A. Covington"
wrote in news:41b0801c$:

IE is evil incarnate.

Not since Service Pack 2; IE is now, in my opinion, safer than Opera.

After three major vunerabilities were discovered within hours of it’s release, I’m kind of doubting this is even vaguely true.
C
Clyde
Dec 4, 2004
Tacit wrote:
ps – recommendations anyone?

Never do production work on a PC. Use a Mac. Zero viruses, zero spyware, zero adware, no Registry, no trojans.

Also, zero upgrade path. I have a Mac that got too slow and old. The only thing to do was buy a new one.

I built my own Windows XP computer. In 20+ years of working on MS computers (and Macs) I have never had a virus, spyware, or trojan. Adware is very much under control, as is the registry.

In my experience, a properly setup and maintained PC or Mac will go crazy / crash / lockup / etc. about the same amount. Neither of them enough to worry about.

Clyde
H
Hecate
Dec 5, 2004
On 04 Dec 2004 04:25:18 GMT, (LauraK) wrote:

Interesting. However, you have warnings plastered all over the page so, tell me, exactly how do you get infected with a proper firewall and running AV, anti malware and anti Trojan software? I’d be interested in the technical details which you, unfortunately, didn’t provide.

There’s good information — and links to more — here:
http://computercops.biz/postt7736.html
I had some very nasty malware come in on ActiveX, until I changed my security setting to always ask before running. Yes, it’s a nuisance but less of a hassle than spending time cleaning the junk out of my computer. I downloaded an update to Shockwave the other day and it automatically installed a Yahoo toolbar. Seems that some time ago I had checked the "always trust Macromedia" box and now it doesn’t ask if I want any other junk installed with a Macromedia download. I did whip off a nasty note to Macromedia after that.
Another exploit uses a corrupted jpg to fool the computer into executing it as a program.
http://www.tech-recipes.com/windows_tips690.html
You need to remember that you don’t look at stuff on the web. You look at stuff that has been downloaded to your computer from the web.

Thanks Laura. The reason I asked him that question specifically was because I believe that what he put on the site was just a rant against PCs. I don’t believe for one minute that a properly secured PC would be in any danger. However, I’m sure that a large number would because they’re not properly secured.

the vast majority of spam/malware/exploits we receive
in the UK can be traced back to the US, and mostly to Florida.

One of the nastiest, coolweb, is Russian.
http://www.spywareguide.com/product_show.php?id=599
Just read an article about Coolweb recently and saw that. The trouble with Russia is that they have superb programmers who are mainly unemployed.



Hecate – The Real One

veni, vidi, reliqui
DD
David Dyer-Bennet
Dec 5, 2004
"Scruff" < Dear> writes:

"David Dyer-Bennet" wrote in message
(Tacit) writes:
So my one opportunity to watch them side-by-side confirmed my more distant experiences, saying that for most applications it’s a bad idea to have Macs at all.

I agree. Most mac users are stuck in the past or stuck with them at a schools or businesses because of contracts. Older ad agencies or photo related businesses are just too buried in mac technology to change. Just because macs were the first to be used for design and film oriented programs the die hards still think they’re best.
Now that most publishers don’t need film supplied and can accept hi-res pdf files, macs are dying the slow death. I use a pc and haven’t had to send anything to a film house in over 2 years. The customer saves money AND I make more.
Seems like yesterday that I would make an ad on my pc, bring it to a film house, they would have to "convert" it to a mac file, and I’d pray it looked ok (never did). That was film houses attempt to adapt. Now they’re obsolete. What a difference from the waxed type and paste up boards. Most people here probably never used those, lol. Shows you how things change. I used to feel like an outcast using a pc, now I feel like I was a pioneer. Gotta love it.

Ah, the smell of hot wax! Desktop waxers, and hand waxers. I took care of a couple of Compugraphic typesetters back in the 1970s (and trained the operators), as well as running their darkroom. And the joys of non-repro blue markers!

David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:>
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/> Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/> Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>
S
Scruff
Dec 5, 2004
LOL, I hate to view myself as an old schooler but, dammit, I guess I am.

"David Dyer-Bennet" wrote in message
"Scruff" < Dear> writes:

"David Dyer-Bennet" wrote in message
(Tacit) writes:
So my one opportunity to watch them side-by-side confirmed my more distant experiences, saying that for most applications it’s a bad idea to have Macs at all.

I agree. Most mac users are stuck in the past or stuck with them at a schools or businesses because of contracts. Older ad agencies or photo related businesses are just too buried in mac technology to change. Just because macs were the first to be used for design and film oriented programs the die hards still think they’re best.
Now that most publishers don’t need film supplied and can accept hi-res
pdf
files, macs are dying the slow death. I use a pc and haven’t had to send anything to a film house in over 2 years. The customer saves money AND
I
make more.
Seems like yesterday that I would make an ad on my pc, bring it to a
film
house, they would have to "convert" it to a mac file, and I’d pray it
looked
ok (never did). That was film houses attempt to adapt. Now they’re
obsolete.
What a difference from the waxed type and paste up boards. Most people
here
probably never used those, lol. Shows you how things change. I used to
feel
like an outcast using a pc, now I feel like I was a pioneer. Gotta love it.

Ah, the smell of hot wax! Desktop waxers, and hand waxers. I took care of a couple of Compugraphic typesetters back in the 1970s (and trained the operators), as well as running their darkroom. And the joys of non-repro blue markers!

David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:>
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/> Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/>
<http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>
T
tacitr
Dec 5, 2004
Thanks Laura. The reason I asked him that question specifically was because I believe that what he put on the site was just a rant against PCs.

I somehow missed your earlier post. No, it’s not a rant against PCs; my computer room, where I’m typing this right now, has one Mac and four PCs in it.

The exact mechanism of infection is detailed in the responses that follow the message. The short version is this:

Internet Explorer has a proprietary tag, called an "iFrame" tag (iFrame is a Microsoft answer to the OBJECT tag).

In Internet Explorer versions prior to the one with XP SP2, including all Explorer versions included with Windows XP Service Pack 1 and earlier, and all versions of Explorer with Windows 2000, NT, Me, 98, or 95, if an iFrame tag points to an HTML page which contains an OBJECT tag, the file referenced by the OBJECT tag is downloaded immediately and executed, silently, with no warning and no notification. So I set up a Web page which contains an iFrame tage whick contains a reference to another Web page that has an OBJECT tag that points to "myvirus.exe," and every person who visits that Web page using a vulnerable version of Explorer will have "myvirus.exe" downloaded and run silently, without warning.

Firewalls make absolutely no difference; the browser is REQUESTING the file. This iFrame vulnerability has (supposedly, I haven’t checked) been fixed, finally, in the most recent security patch, released five days ago by Microsoft. i have not verified whether or not the patch fixes the problem.

I do not rant against PCs; I rant against Windows. There is a difference. Microsoft has always had, and I believe always will have, a very sloppy and cavalier attitude about security; they make absolutely terrible security decisions, such as integrating the Web browser with the operating system, strictly to further their own monetary gain, with utter disregard bordering on contempt for the consequences these decisions have on their users.

They talk about security, and pose and posture about security, but as the saying goes, talk is cheap. In the end, Microsoft prodocts are a security nightmare, and Microsoft, phony PR propaganda notwithstanding, simply doesn’t care.


Art, literature, shareware, polyamory, kink, and more:
http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html
T
tacitr
Dec 5, 2004
The Macs the developers had at MultiLogic caused us far more maintenance hassles than the PCs used by the software developers and the rest of the staff. And cost nearly twice as much, and had to be replaced much sooner with machines costing even more than twice as much.

Yes, I have a client (a Fortune 500 retail chain store) that has the same complaints about Macs–they cost more, they cost more to maintain, they can’t interoperate.

What I found, when I started consulting for them, was very interesting:

– "They cost more." No, actually, they don’t cost more; in the case of my client, the up-front cost of a computer comes out of one budget, and upgrades/peripherals come out of another. So they say "See, a Mac is $2,000 and a PC is $600!" Then, of course, they add a bigger hard drive, more memory, gigabit Ethernet, and so on, to the PCs–in the end, the cost is about the same. The difference is a budgeting illusion.

– "They cost more to maintain." Yes, that one is absolutely true. They do cost more to maintain. I know this for a fact because I’ve seen the numbers. You see, the company’s IT department is virtually ignorant about Macs, so they hire me to install them, configure them, put software on them, and so on. Hiring an outside contractor is always very expensive compared to keeping internal IT people. they could save a mind-blowing amount of money just by training their IT people on Macs, but the IT people don’t want to learn; they hate and fear Macs. So they pay me. Which is good; i make a lot of money that way. 🙂

– "They can’t interoperate." Actually, they can; that’s just a software issue. Their IT people use the "can’t interoperate" argument for one of two reasons–they genuinely don’t know any better, or they want a reason to keep Macs away. In either case, my client is always amazed when they say a Mac can’t do this or that witht heir PC network, and whaddyaknow, I come in and it can. But that’s OK, too, because it means I get more money.

Seriously, these arguments I’ve heard before, and they’re all provably, demonstrably false. But people are religious about computers. They *want* to believe Apple is failing, that Macs can’t do anything, that Macs are super-expensive and hard to maintain. People have an emotional investment in all these ideas.

Which is fine, because I go into companies whose IT employees are all superstitious religious fanatics, and I make a lot of money.


Art, literature, shareware, polyamory, kink, and more:
http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html
B
bagal
Dec 5, 2004
Tacit wrote:
Thanks Laura. The reason I asked him that question specifically was because I believe that what he put on the site was just a rant against PCs.

Hi Tacit
3 points if I may?

1 – great traching work! And thank you for making the details available. I was buying in to the PR and perhaps emotively assuming gripes were from MS mal-wishers. Now I know otherwise and can also explain why someone I spoke to a few weeks ago was being bombarded with pop-up some of which were of a pornographic nature (great for the kids innit?)

2 – the facts speak for themselves (a few bounces and a program was installed without permission being sought or required) ’nuff said

3 – you personal views are exactly that and should not affect points 1 and 2 above

Oh! and a 4th one

In the genre of mega-buck software and hardware businesses I’d have thought you would be getting thanks from all

Well done m8!

Aerticeus
T
tacitr
Dec 5, 2004
Also, zero upgrade path.

Funny…I’m typing this message on a five-year-old Mac with an upgraded processor, upgraded video card, and third-party DVD-RW drive, running Mac OS X Server 10.3.6; what was that you were saying about "zero upgrade path?" I missed that…


Art, literature, shareware, polyamory, kink, and more:
http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html
H
Hecate
Dec 6, 2004
On 05 Dec 2004 22:44:03 GMT, (Tacit) wrote:

Which is fine, because I go into companies whose IT employees are all superstitious religious fanatics,

Ah, you mean they’re all Mac fans…



Hecate – The Real One

veni, vidi, reliqui
H
Hecate
Dec 6, 2004
On 05 Dec 2004 22:29:20 GMT, (Tacit) wrote:

Thanks Laura. The reason I asked him that question specifically was because I believe that what he put on the site was just a rant against PCs.

I somehow missed your earlier post. No, it’s not a rant against PCs; my computer room, where I’m typing this right now, has one Mac and four PCs in it.
The exact mechanism of infection is detailed in the responses that follow the message. The short version is this:

Internet Explorer has a proprietary tag, called an "iFrame" tag (iFrame is a Microsoft answer to the OBJECT tag).

Right. Now you see, you said any Windows user going to the site would be infected immediately. Crap. I have iFrame usage blocked. It’s simple to do in any good quality firewall, and you can even do it in the security section of IE.

Firewalls make absolutely no difference; the browser is REQUESTING the file.

Rubbish. You can block it easily with any firewall worth it’s name.

This iFrame vulnerability has (supposedly, I haven’t checked) been fixed, finally, in the most recent security patch, released five days ago by Microsoft. i have not verified whether or not the patch fixes the problem.

Personally, I haven’t had an iFrame vulnerability on my system since purchasing Outpost.



Hecate – The Real One

veni, vidi, reliqui
HP
helmut.p.einfaltNOSPAM
Dec 6, 2004
Hecate wrote:
Firewalls make absolutely no difference

Rubbish. You can block it easily with any firewall worth it’s name.
This iFrame vulnerability has (supposedly, I haven’t checked) been fixed

Personally, I haven’t had an iFrame vulnerability on my system since purchasing Outpost.

The problem is not that the holes couldn’t be plugged — the problem is that M$’s products
— are designed to be jack-of-all-trades (or rather, as the Germans put it "egg-producing wool-and-milk pigs") that shall install on virtually every conceivable hardware with a minimum amount of user input — but that also implies that the user is given no or little chance to interfere with the system from the very start of the installation process.
— lack a documentation worth its name
— need some of these security holes in order to automagically check for upgrades and never plug them after use
— default to "keep everything open" in order to facilitate the first point — and no average user ever gets to know what security holes this implies.
And things haven’t really improved with the introduction of XP…

Getting a Windows-based system to be secure requires more computer literacy than can be expected from the average user, and there lies a large part of the problem, too.

Helmut

All typos © My Knotty Fingers Ltd. Capacity Dept.
HP
helmut.p.einfaltNOSPAM
Dec 6, 2004
Tacit wrote:
The Macs…

– "They cost more." No, actually, they don’t cost more;

Well, actually — in some parts of the world they *do* cost more, and considerably more, for that matter. In Germany and Austria you roughly say that the price tag of a Mac compared to a PC of similar performance (memory-, HD- etc. -wise) is between 15 adn 20% higher (and until a few years ago the difference used to be nearer to 30%)

– "They can’t interoperate."

With a little twiddling and fiddling virtually all systems and OS can be made to interoperate, albeit it might require some computer literacy.

Summing it up:
The Mac has a few advantages over the PC in some areas,
the PC has a few advantages over the Mac in other areas, and a *real* workstation can do things very easily neither of the two does very well.

Cost (and the rest of the mileage) varies, though…

Helmut

All typos © My Knotty Fingers Ltd. Capacity Dept.
C
Clyde
Dec 6, 2004
Tacit wrote:
Also, zero upgrade path.

Funny…I’m typing this message on a five-year-old Mac with an upgraded processor, upgraded video card, and third-party DVD-RW drive, running Mac OS X Server 10.3.6; what was that you were saying about "zero upgrade path?" I missed that…

My apologies, I shouldn’t have been so arbitrary. MY Mac wasn’t upgradeable, but there are Macs that are.

I have an iMac DV SE 400 MHz. I stuffed 1 GB of RAM in the thing and did plug a Firewire HD and CD-RW drive onto it. But there are NO processor upgrades to it at all. I’ve done everything I can do to it.

Frankly, Apple goes out of its way to keep their computers from upgrade paths. They make money by you buying computers not by 3rd parties giving you upgrade options. True, this does apply to their all-in-one computers more than the under-the-desk computers.

So, I will revise my statement… Apple computers have variable upgrade paths from zero to somewhat. None of them have anywhere near the upgrade flexibility of Intel/AMD hardware.

Of course, this takes more technical knowledge, but that doesn’t scare me. Apple has a philosophy of tightly controlling the hardware and software environment to make SURE that they will really work together in a true plug-and-play environment. For some that is great. It does limit the flexibility though.

Clyde

PS – OS X (10.3.6) really is a great OS though.
T
tacitr
Dec 6, 2004
I have an iMac DV SE 400 MHz. I stuffed 1 GB of RAM in the thing and did plug a Firewire HD and CD-RW drive onto it. But there are NO processor upgrades to it at all.

I’ve heard of people upgrading these iMacs to 600MHz; you can use the processor daughter card from a later revision iMac in some cases. But for the most part, you’re limited in the iMac; 600MHz G3 is as far as you go.

Frankly, Apple goes out of its way to keep their computers from upgrade paths. They make money by you buying computers not by 3rd parties giving you upgrade options.

Not so. Apple makes two basic machine configurations: all-in-one, plug-in-and-go systems for home users with little computer experience, designed to be completely turnkey. You don’t need a monitor, you don’t need anything that does not come in the box; you just buy the computer, take it out of the box, plug it in, and boom, there you go. These machines aren’t designed for expandability; they’re designed to be totally encapsulated, totally standalone home systems.

The other masic machine configuration is a traditional desktop computer. They’re not all-in-one systems; they’re analogous to PC systems. The systems are open and expandable–PCI, ZIF processor slots, lots of RAM slots, extra drive bays, and so on. They are designed for higher-end users, for office use, and for professional use. You have many upgrade options; indeed, a significant number of upgrade manufacturers for PC hardware make Mac upgrades as well. Apple does not attempt to discourage this practice–far from it, Apple lists third-party upgrade manufacturers on their Web site!

If you get a compact car, you can’t complaint that it can’t haul a half a ton of bricks and tow a trailer; if you buy a pickup, it’s not reasonable to complain that it doesn’t carry many passengers and doesn’t fit in compact car spaces. Similarly, if you get a machine designed to be an encapsulated all-in-one system, it’s not fair to complain that it’s not as expandable as a desktop; buy the machine you need, and you won’t have those problems.


Art, literature, shareware, polyamory, kink, and more:
http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html
B
bagal
Dec 6, 2004

<sharp intake of breath>

miaoww?

tetchy!

</sharp intake of breath>

Aerticeus

ps – how easy is it to fix iFrame problems in IE?

A
T
tacitr
Dec 6, 2004
ps – how easy is it to fix iFrame problems in IE?

It’s not, as evidenced by the fact that many iFrame vulnerabilities still exist. The iFrame tag was intended by Microsoft as a replacement for the OBJECT tag, but it was badly implemnted; CERT lists at least three outstanding iFrame exploits, and the one I dealt with was a "day zero" exploit (meaning that the exploit appeared in the wild before it was discovered by security researchers or published by CERT).

You can, if you have a firewall that is also an HTML filter, set the HTML filter to filter all occurrances of the iFrame tag; that’ll fix the problem. You can also use a non-Microsoft browser, which won’t recognize the iFrame tag. But if you’re using Explorer and don’t have an HTML filter in place, you’re vulnerable.

One problem with the design of Explorer, though, is the fact that the Explorer libraries are part of the operating system, and are always running. As a result, there are some Explorer vulnerabilities (not the iFrame vulnerability, thankfully) that can be exploited *even if the user is using a diffeent browser*.

For example, the Explorer vulnerabilities referenced by Microsoft updates KB832894 and KB828750 can be exploited even if the user is not using Explorer as his browser. Additionally, the fact that Explorer runs with the Windows analog of root access means that an Explorer vulnerability can give up complete access to a system even if the vulnerability is exploited when the current user has limited system privileges.

Put these things together–some Explorer vulnerabilities can be exploited even if the user is using a browser other than Explorer, and the Explorer vulnerabilities can give unlimited system access to an attacker even if the current user is running in a limited context–and Explorer is one scary piece of software.


Art, literature, shareware, polyamory, kink, and more:
http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html
B
bagal
Dec 6, 2004
Tacit wrote:
ps – how easy is it to fix iFrame problems in IE?

It’s not, as evidenced by the fact that many iFrame vulnerabilities still exist. The iFrame tag was intended by Microsoft as a replacement for the OBJECT tag, but it was badly implemnted; CERT lists at least three outstanding iFrame exploits, and the one I dealt with was a "day zero" exploit (meaning that the exploit appeared in the wild before it was discovered by security researchers or published by CERT).

You can, if you have a firewall that is also an HTML filter, set the HTML filter to filter all occurrances of the iFrame tag; that’ll fix the problem. You can also use a non-Microsoft browser, which won’t recognize the iFrame tag. But if you’re using Explorer and don’t have an HTML filter in place, you’re vulnerable.

One problem with the design of Explorer, though, is the fact that the Explorer libraries are part of the operating system, and are always running. As a result, there are some Explorer vulnerabilities (not the iFrame vulnerability, thankfully) that can be exploited *even if the user is using a diffeent browser*.

For example, the Explorer vulnerabilities referenced by Microsoft updates KB832894 and KB828750 can be exploited even if the user is not using Explorer as his browser. Additionally, the fact that Explorer runs with the Windows analog of root access means that an Explorer vulnerability can give up complete access to a system even if the vulnerability is exploited when the current user has limited system privileges.

Put these things together–some Explorer vulnerabilities can be exploited even if the user is using a browser other than Explorer, and the Explorer vulnerabilities can give unlimited system access to an attacker even if the current user is running in a limited context–and Explorer is one scary piece of software.
I wonder? Maybe it was designed that way? No, can’t be true?

Aerticeus
H
Hecate
Dec 7, 2004
On Mon, 6 Dec 2004 06:03:54 -0000, "Helmut P. Einfalt" wrote:

Tacit wrote:
The Macs…

– "They cost more." No, actually, they don’t cost more;

Well, actually — in some parts of the world they *do* cost more, and considerably more, for that matter. In Germany and Austria you roughly say that the price tag of a Mac compared to a PC of similar performance (memory-, HD- etc. -wise) is between 15 adn 20% higher (and until a few years ago the difference used to be nearer to 30%)

Yes. I can buy approx 2 decent PCs for the cost of a single Mac.



Hecate – The Real One

veni, vidi, reliqui
H
Hecate
Dec 7, 2004
On Mon, 6 Dec 2004 05:50:45 -0000, "Helmut P. Einfalt" wrote:

Getting a Windows-based system to be secure requires more computer literacy than can be expected from the average user, and there lies a large part of the problem, too.
I agree. But that also means that not 8all* Windows machines are vulnerable – just those not suitably protected. And whilst that may be a majority, it still isn’t all, which is what the OP was trying to suggest.



Hecate – The Real One

veni, vidi, reliqui
B
bagal
Dec 8, 2004
JD wrote:

Any problems with the CCleaner?

Not a bit – it runs sweet-de-sweet

Aerticeus
B
bagal
Dec 11, 2004
Clyde wrote:
Tacit wrote:

ps – recommendations anyone?

Never do production work on a PC. Use a Mac. Zero viruses, zero spyware, zero
adware, no Registry, no trojans.

Also, zero upgrade path. I have a Mac that got too slow and old. The only thing to do was buy a new one.

I built my own Windows XP computer. In 20+ years of working on MS computers (and Macs) I have never had a virus, spyware, or trojan. Adware is very much under control, as is the registry.

In my experience, a properly setup and maintained PC or Mac will go crazy / crash / lockup / etc. about the same amount. Neither of them enough to worry about.

Clyde
Yeh – I can dig this. No problemo

But what are they doing about Live Aid 20?

Aerticulean Effort

How to Master Sharpening in Photoshop

Give your photos a professional finish with sharpening in Photoshop. Learn to enhance details, create contrast, and prepare your images for print, web, and social media.

Related Discussion Topics

Nice and short text about related topics in discussion sections