[PCWorld]

Post your comments for The Greatest PC Mysteries--Solved! here

[oldschoolh4ck3r]

What does 'diskpart clean all' do, and why the heck did I do that?

LOL!
(don't try it, btw)

[gatorguy]

Over the past couple of months I've been seeing files show up in my downloads folder called search, search (1), etc. no extension. I have a feeling they're caused by Google or Chrome or both.

[Vejp4]

I disagree with this one: Does it matter whether I 'safely remove' devices I have for YEARS removed my flash drive w/out using that feature and never had a issue. Ever.

[Vejp4]

I disagree with this one: Does it matter whether I 'safely remove' devices I have for YEARS removed my flash drive w/out using that feature and never had a issue. Ever.

[BulldogXX]

wer

[BulldogXX]

"Many programs' uninstallers are ineffective."

True - but other uninstallers are conservative: They don't remove many files and registry entries that won't affect your computer's performance. These objects may be stored in locations that are frequently updated, and rather than risk the chance of damaging your computer, they're left alone.

Other uninstallers purposely leave behind objects for legitimate reasons. For example: If you intend to reinstall the application, you'll be glad to know that your computer still has your license information and setup choices.

Another example is when trial versions of for-pay software try to prevent you from using the application after the trial has ended.

And, unfortunately, there are developers who don't care what happens to your computer once they have your money.

[xyberviri]

Vejp4, on 30 April 2012 - 05:00 AM, said:

I disagree with this one: Does it matter whether I 'safely remove' devices I have for YEARS removed my flash drive w/out using that feature and never had a issue. Ever.

For flash drives i have never seen corruption happen, but for USB hard drives i have seen this happen especially on the old passports that are powered by the usb connection.

[rgeiken]

Every Browser should have WOT installed. WOT or Web Of Trust will indicate if a certain site can be trusted or not. If it decides that it is unsafe it will lock the page and require you to indicate that you really want to get there. That is a great feature. When WOT is Green, it indicates a safe site. Orange is marginal, and Red is an undesirable site. I have it on all of my computers and it works with both IE and Firefox.

[artzy65]

rgeiken, on 30 April 2012 - 07:30 AM, said:

Every Browser should have WOT installed. WOT or Web Of Trust will indicate if a certain site can be trusted or not. If it decides that it is unsafe it will lock the page and require you to indicate that you really want to get there. That is a great feature. When WOT is Green, it indicates a safe site. Orange is marginal, and Red is an undesirable site. I have it on all of my computers and it works with both IE and Firefox.

I use WOT as well. It's not perfect, though, since the ratings are dependent on users' opinions. You may run into an unrated malicious site and WOT would miss it, in which case you'll get a gray symbol with a question mark. And I suspect some 'green' sites are not green at all... there are ways to 'stuff the ballot box' probably. I'm no expert, just a naturally-suspicious citizen... call it self-preservation.

I use FF add-ons NoScript, Ghostery, BetterPrivacy, and a couple of others as well.

This post has been edited by artzy65: 30 April 2012 - 07:53 AM

[Pod54]

Good overview, but you missed a few. How about .eml or .wmv and other mail and recording formats?

[Pod54]

Good overview, but how about the email extensions like .eml and media extensions such as .wmv ec. An article on each would be appreciated.

[WilliamMiller1l20]

artzy65, on 30 April 2012 - 07:50 AM, said:

rgeiken, on 30 April 2012 - 07:30 AM, said:

Every Browser should have WOT installed. WOT or Web Of Trust will indicate if a certain site can be trusted or not. If it decides that it is unsafe it will lock the page and require you to indicate that you really want to get there. That is a great feature. When WOT is Green, it indicates a safe site. Orange is marginal, and Red is an undesirable site. I have it on all of my computers and it works with both IE and Firefox.

I use WOT as well. It's not perfect, though, since the ratings are dependent on users' opinions. You may run into an unrated malicious site and WOT would miss it, in which case you'll get a gray symbol with a question mark. And I suspect some 'green' sites are not green at all... there are ways to 'stuff the ballot box' probably. I'm no expert, just a naturally-suspicious citizen... call it self-preservation.

I use FF add-ons NoScript, Ghostery, BetterPrivacy, and a couple of others as well.

WOT i not that trustworthy as you said It's data base is User Opinion and there are bots that can get around that.

[artzy65]

WilliamMiller1l20, on 30 April 2012 - 10:33 AM, said:

artzy65, on 30 April 2012 - 07:50 AM, said:

rgeiken, on 30 April 2012 - 07:30 AM, said:

Every Browser should have WOT installed. WOT or Web Of Trust will indicate if a certain site can be trusted or not. If it decides that it is unsafe it will lock the page and require you to indicate that you really want to get there. That is a great feature. When WOT is Green, it indicates a safe site. Orange is marginal, and Red is an undesirable site. I have it on all of my computers and it works with both IE and Firefox.

I use WOT as well. It's not perfect, though, since the ratings are dependent on users' opinions. You may run into an unrated malicious site and WOT would miss it, in which case you'll get a gray symbol with a question mark. And I suspect some 'green' sites are not green at all... there are ways to 'stuff the ballot box' probably. I'm no expert, just a naturally-suspicious citizen... call it self-preservation.

I use FF add-ons NoScript, Ghostery, BetterPrivacy, and a couple of others as well.

WOT i not that trustworthy as you said It's data base is User Opinion and there are bots that can get around that.

You need to read my post more carefully; you missed the part where I said its ratings are based on user opinion and therefore not perfect. I didn't say anything about it being trustworthy or not.

This post has been edited by artzy65: 30 April 2012 - 02:36 PM

[CharlesEichelberger]

gatorguy, on 30 April 2012 - 04:37 AM, said:

Over the past couple of months I've been seeing files show up in my downloads folder called search, search (1), etc. no extension. I have a feeling they're caused by Google or Chrome or both.

They are caused by Google's instant search. You can delete them.

[WayneW]

artzy65, on 30 April 2012 - 07:50 AM, said:

rgeiken, on 30 April 2012 - 07:30 AM, said:

Every Browser should have WOT installed. WOT or Web Of Trust will indicate if a certain site can be trusted or not. If it decides that it is unsafe it will lock the page and require you to indicate that you really want to get there. That is a great feature. When WOT is Green, it indicates a safe site. Orange is marginal, and Red is an undesirable site. I have it on all of my computers and it works with both IE and Firefox.

I use WOT as well. It's not perfect, though, since the ratings are dependent on users' opinions. You may run into an unrated malicious site and WOT would miss it, in which case you'll get a gray symbol with a question mark. And I suspect some 'green' sites are not green at all... there are ways to 'stuff the ballot box' probably. I'm no expert, just a naturally-suspicious citizen... call it self-preservation.

I use FF add-ons NoScript, Ghostery, BetterPrivacy, and a couple of others as well.

Good add-ons and I'd NEVER trust WOT.
Starting BEFORE the last Presidential election demon-crats used it (and still do) to blacklist sites THEY didn't think YOU should visit. Had NOTHING to do with drive-bys or any OTHER type infection.
Speaking of infections, Hope YOU don't come down with what causes the defections that those people are afflicted with.

[hydroron]

The article overall is not that helpful. Why doesn't it, for instance, tell us about a common problem with Windows 7 PCs, i.e. the internet is full of comments about Windows 7 not shutting down? Instead, it just sits there spinning for hours. Now, that's a real problem, not the weeny examples in the article.

[hydroron]

The article overall is not that useful. Why doesn't it tell us how to solve real problems instead of the weeny examples given? One of the real problems rampant all over the web is the "Windows 7 won't shutdown problem" that is plaguing me right now, but not a word about that in the article!

[Internet2k4]

Makes it sound as if all undeletable files are being accessed by running applications - not so. The crazy-making files that can't otherwise be removed can be with Unlocker:

http://www.filehippo...nload_unlocker/

Sometimes have to reboot, and then voila!

[Internet2k4]

hydroron, on 01 May 2012 - 03:27 AM, said:

The article overall is not that useful. Why doesn't it tell us how to solve real problems instead of the weeny examples given? One of the real problems rampant all over the web is the "Windows 7 won't shutdown problem" that is plaguing me right now, but not a word about that in the article!

Try this - it works for me on XP and directions here are for W7

http://www.techrepub...-windows-7/2048