Thanks Sean. I updated my Norton this am.; do you know if Norton had a fix available then?
16 responses Add your response
Swampwalker...I did a live update late tonight (12/26/01), and this virus family was listed. FYI open the Norton Control Box, click on "Reports" next click on the list of viruses that Norton is protecting you against, click on "view report", then "find", and you can see if the virus that you're interested in, is being protected against. MAKE SURE THAT BOTH THE INNOCULATION AND E-MAIL SCREENING ARE ENABLED! TRUST ME, I LEARNED THE HARD WAY! Happy Tunes!
Yeah, you could buy a Mac. Then all you would have to do is be able to find all the programs that you want to run. While this is not a problem for me ( since i don't have a Mac ), i know others that have run into this situation. They've gotten "upset" that the manufacturers of some killer software don't make programs for Mac's. Guess who gets to run programs for them as a "favor" ??? You can talk all the "smack" that you want about Mac's, but when you can't do simple tasks or what you want to do with them, the "superiority" factor goes down hill REAL fast.
Besides that, some companies are moving away from Mac's. With their commercial based products weakening, they might not be around a lot longer. I've got a few friends that work on puters for a living and they've told me that more than a few design & engineering companies are slowly leaving Mac's behind.
On top of that, Mac's are just as susceptible to virus' as PC's are. It is just that they comprise such a microscopic portion of active internet users, the "idiots" writing virus' don't waste their time toying with them. Why screw around with infecting 100 people when you can create chaos with 10,000 people ???
Then again, this just made me think of something. Wouldn't it be "somethin" if the boys at Mac were responsible for exposing all of the problems with Microsoft / PC based problems via writing Windoes based virus' ???? What a GREAT way to generate sales and demonstrate the "superiority" of Mac's.
To be fair though, i do have to admit that Mac users tend to be FAR more computer literate and of a higher average IQ. Even with the Mac user's greater operating skill and higher level of intelligence, you still can't beat the momentum of mob action that Windows has generated. Sean
a couple quick points, as this isnt' the forum to prove superiority of macs, but:
1) Virii are simply not an option on Macs, not due to user base, but operating system holes. Simply put there are far far fewer in Mac OS vs. Windoze.
2) Given that OS X is unix-based, and that Unix is the OS of choice for power users/servers/most serious computers since 1970 or so, I don't think software will ever be an issue. Need something you don't have? simply recompile it and run it.
2a.) Given that Unix has as many security holes as most MS stuff, you will have to watch out a lot more than before if using a Mac. Of course, the better OS support and the fact that everyone has the holes figured out by now, makes it more of a moot point.
A tangent: most of the so-called redbook CD 'encryption' issues are only a problem on PCs.
Albert, i new that you had a Mac from previous posts but didn't know ( might've forgotten ) that Kelly was a member of that crowd also. With the two of you in the Mac crowd, i might have to re-assess my comments about them having higher than average intelligence : )
With all of the problems that i've been having with Windows glitching, various virus problems, etc.., i keep talking to my business partner ( he's pretty savvy with puters ) about buying a Mac. All he gives me is TONS of negative points about them. Maybe i need to do some further research for myself and look at things with an open mind. I went the PC route as that is what most of my friends had and i knew that they would help me out if i got stuck somewhere. Like most others new to any hobby, i was looking for guidance. Only problem is, i think that they set me up with the equivalent of a Pioneer receiver, Technics CD player and Blose speakers. Reputable and "good" stuff if you don't know any better.
To get an idea of what i've been going through with Windows and MicroShaft, take a look at a post that i did on AA today. For those considering going to XP or someone who already has it, make sure that you read my other post way down at the bottom of this same thread. You might find it interesting to find out that MicroShaft's "new and improved / latest and greatest" is actually "slower and stupider" with even more bugs than normal. Then again, we should be expecting this by now.... Sean
That comment about intelligence made me laugh out loud!
I needed that, I've been doing electrical runs all day on my construction project and am worn out.
As for Windows, our Dell has Windows ME and my son is not sure if its as stable as Windows 98. I don't use it very much as a photographer because my business operation software has been Mac (only) for the last nine years, (Hindsight in Colorado).
Both Photoshop and Illustrator run faster on Mac, but if I were in the usual business world, where EVERYONE uses Microsoft Office, I would either use the Dell with that software, or buy Microsoft Office for Mac.
Word on the street is that Office runs faster and with zero crashes in the new hybrid Mac-Unix (OS X), as it is native Mac, just like the version for Windows. Supposedly they "talk" well with each other.
I can't afford Office right now, have important things like music to tend to.............right after I get my space complete. Anyway, when did a computer ever do anything cool for us like make the hair on your neck stand up when you played it?
FWIW, my son reports that ME is more stable than Win98 (now that's damning with faint praise if ever I heard it). A local geek I know says Win2000 has NEVER crashed on him. I think its based on WinNT which is supposed to be very stable. Any Albert you are right, if you have to communicate with other businesses, share files, send attachments, whatever, then you are definately locked into the PC/MS world.
From doing a little research since i've gone to using XP, it appears as if Windows 2000 is the fastest and most reliable version yet. I guess it has problems with some DOS based programs though, so it may not be universal for all applications. For those not using DOS and wanting to stick with a Windows based system, it is probably the best way to go. That is what i'll be installing on this one and several other puters. Sean
XP just MIGHT be more stable in the long run, but it is also slower than 2000 no matter what you do to it. I had a link to a website that did a very in-depth comparison between those two using several different computers, etc... Even under optimum conditions, the VERY BEST that XP was able to do was to run 89% as fast as Windows 2000 did. The more windows that you had running at the same time ( multi-tasking ), the bigger the difference in speed. At one point, XP literally took twice as long to process the same amount of information. As for me, i didnt buy a faster computer to load it up with a slower operating system. Sean