Spring RTS Engine

==Troy== wrote:win7 UAC is useless too, only blocks the rare piece of crapware, which is written by a scriptkiddie.

You don't know what you're talking about, as usual. Blocks new services and registry entries (not to mention the filesystem). Now where oh where do most common virii get their clout? Oh that's right, upon startup (Blocking executable and msi starts including access to msconfig and any number of other useful tools). Seriously dude, inform yourself. Your linux4lyfepwnzall attitude is ridiculous, at least make an attempt to know what you're talking about before spewing.

ZoneAlarm is crap
It mostly pretends to be a virusscanner, while it really is only trying to get you annoyed

You know, for the sake of humour, I was running one computer under XP with no security features or software enabled for three months. A number of my friends with various habits were running a variety of OS with whatever security was available. Each week we reported the condition of our machines.

Not being an idiot, I consistently had one of the more stable computers, despite high internet use and no security.

In short, yes, anti-virus software can be useful, noscript is a blessing, but your first and most important line of defense should be your own good sense.

I'm still waiting for a virus to show up on either of my computers.

lurker wrote:I'm still waiting for a virus to show up on either of my computers.

What a wonderful thing to wait for.

lurker wrote:I'm still waiting for a virus to show up on either of my computers.

you can have some of mine, im all about the SP 1 XP install on internet explorer 3 with no firewall or security

Xp came with IE6

Lets face it, the real protection lift was that most virus writing script-kiddies today lower the profit margin of spam-botnetworks of the professionals. I wouldn┬┤t wonder if those badguys one day start to write antivirussoftware, that runs hidden on there zombies, just to protect whats theres.

Forboding Angel wrote:

==Troy== wrote:win7 UAC is useless too, only blocks the rare piece of crapware, which is written by a scriptkiddie.

You don't know what you're talking about, as usual. Blocks new services and registry entries (not to mention the filesystem). Now where oh where do most common virii get their clout? Oh that's right, upon startup (Blocking executable and msi starts including access to msconfig and any number of other useful tools). Seriously dude, inform yourself. Your linux4lyfepwnzall attitude is ridiculous, at least make an attempt to know what you're talking about before spewing.

The only time I allow myself to go over the limit and start doing "win sucks" (and similarly "linux sux") is when I see that people blatantly advertise a system, without any real knowledge what really helps. There was a post somewhere on the net that the win7 UAC blocked 1 or 2 out of 10 attempts of viruses/malware install itself.

I don't use antivirus actively any more. I avast installed, but only ever scan once or twice a year, and don't allow it to do anything at all when I don't manually go in and do things. For the most part it's just too much of a performance hit, and I don't download enough exe files that are remotely suspicious or ride the internet roller coaster (click things I don't trust) to really put myself in danger apparently. My scans never come up with anything but threatening cookies anyways, and I don't give a crap about that stuff.

I have windows defender which came with vista for the just incase stuff, it has a low impact on my performance, else i wouldn't bother. I knwo its not the best, I should probably disable it. Ive got microsoft security essentials installed too and an ad aware SE somewhere.

A well configured setup and good common sense does me fine, I might download one of those linux antivirus boot CDs one day and do a scan, as they're really more reliable than running an antivirus program on the system its running from where it could itself have been compromised..

neddiedrow wrote:In short, yes, anti-virus software can be useful, noscript is a blessing, but your first and most important line of defense should be your own good sense.

I totally agree..
The problem is not everyone HAS common sense

bartvbl wrote:

neddiedrow wrote:In short, yes, anti-virus software can be useful, noscript is a blessing, but your first and most important line of defense should be your own good sense.

I totally agree..
The problem is not everyone HAS common sense

I think experience helps just as much as common sense. For example, I got a phishing link sent to me over Messenger when I was a kid, and I fell for it. I've never fallen for it since.

@AF

I found that having dual windows works best for that. CalmAV is medicore anti-virus and seems to miss a lot of less known virii, well, at least it seems like it (I would bet that most of windows viruses are at least 20% scare-ware)


With dual-windows setup you run something small and light on the main system, and then on weekends boot into second windows and run a full system scan. Works really well.

Here's an idea: If your friend is completely computer-illiterate and therefore lacks common sense in browsing habits etc. - why not install a linux (with desktop environment obviously) for him/her? If all he/she does is browse the net, send emails, write some docs or play some simple games, he/she wouldn't know the difference.

JAZCASH wrote: I think experience helps just as much as common sense. For example, I got a phishing link sent to me over Messenger when I was a kid, and I fell for it. I've never fallen for it since.

True too..
And I think everyone learns this way. No matter they have antivirus or not

Teutooni wrote:Here's an idea: If your friend is completely computer-illiterate and therefore lacks common sense in browsing habits etc. - why not install a linux (with desktop environment obviously) for him/her? If all he/she does is browse the net, send emails, write some docs or play some simple games, he/she wouldn't know the difference.

Problem is, linux has some serious useability issues. If you're going to emulate a desktop environment the it should probably resemble windows enough to make sure that people can get what they need.

For example in ubuntu you have "Applications". Most retards using computers don't know that a program is an application.

Kubuntu mitigates this to some small extent, but the issues are still prevalent.

Even worse is the volume panels in (k)ubuntu, What exactly the fuck is cs101? In windows you have "Volume Panel", with main, wave, midi, etc. Something as simple as this is enough to turn someone off from linux.

Forboding Angel wrote:Problem is, linux has some serious useability issues. If you're going to emulate a desktop environment the it should probably resemble windows enough to make sure that people can get what they need.

What? Clicking a launcher icon was just as 'tricky' in gnome/kde as it was in any windows I've used.

Forboding Angel wrote:For example in ubuntu you have "Applications". Most retards using computers don't know that a program is an application.

Indeed, but then again they don't probably know what a program is either. Which is why you should make simple launchers for them, i.e. 'Internet', 'Email' etc.

Anyway, this was just an idea - It might be easier to teach them the basic use of kde or gnome than to teach them how to browse safely and how to use antivirus/firewall software...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n4StlvX-kOg

but tbh, even then you can lock up windows in a similar way as linux for a user who uses just browser + email.

Oi, fuck a bunch of that shit. XP looks terrible. Win7 is my fav UI so far, followed by default ubuntu (even though ubuntu's is unintuitive sometimes).