Page 1 of 1
25 Questions, 25 Answers
#4
Posted 12 February 2008 - 04:11 PM
Enjoyed the various bits of info, but have to comment on leaving a PC running overnight, which means indefinitely. Besides the issues of power consumption and refreshing the caches, etc., my sister's experience is instructive. She lives in a rural area prone to more power surges and brownouts than I've ever experienced in the city and leaves her computer running 24/7 without UPS protection. Recently, her computer, running windows xp home suffered an unrecoverable boot failure which I believe, on the available evidence, was caused by one or more power surges or short blackouts which contaminated or otherwise damaged the boot sectors of her HD. I have had that happen to me as well, but I believe in regular image/incremental backups, which have saved my butt on more than one occasion. She could not be persuaded to take these extra precautions.
#6
Posted 17 February 2008 - 10:32 AM
Odd Question....... The article recommendeds to place a WI-FI router away from large CD collections.... Am I missing some of Lincoln's humor, or does optical media pose some sort of interference problem; or worse yet, some damaging affect to GB of data/music/movies?
#8
Posted 28 February 2008 - 10:39 AM
I think you left out a very good reason to shut down a PC at night or any time it's not in use for several hours: Shutting down limits the PC's exposure to the internet. In particular, a PC that's regularly shut down becomes a very undesirable host for BOTS.
My machine takes about 30 seconds to boot and that's not much of an annoyance.
My machine takes about 30 seconds to boot and that's not much of an annoyance.
#11
Posted 01 March 2008 - 09:29 AM
Thanks, but actually that sounds like a commercial, and I imagine only a small percentage of PC users have Zone Alarm. I was trying to give some general advice, not push a particular product.
I'm using DSL with a dynamic IP address. I'm also behind a router that automatically logs out after an hour of non-use, so nearly every time I boot I have a new IP address. And my router is set up not to answer pings.
I haven't tried Zone Alarm, but I tried several others and I'm very happy with McAfee security. In particular, McAfee takes longer than, for instance, Norton to do a complete virus scan, but it also has such a low impact on my system that I hardly notice it's running.
I'm using DSL with a dynamic IP address. I'm also behind a router that automatically logs out after an hour of non-use, so nearly every time I boot I have a new IP address. And my router is set up not to answer pings.
I haven't tried Zone Alarm, but I tried several others and I'm very happy with McAfee security. In particular, McAfee takes longer than, for instance, Norton to do a complete virus scan, but it also has such a low impact on my system that I hardly notice it's running.
#12
Posted 08 July 2008 - 05:32 AM
Power fluctuations indeed, can abound in many areas of the country.
I cannot understand anyones failure to use something as inexpensive
and readily available as a UPC especially when electrical fluctuations are known to be a problem.
I cannot imagine what your sister was thinking.
I cannot understand anyones failure to use something as inexpensive
and readily available as a UPC especially when electrical fluctuations are known to be a problem.
I cannot imagine what your sister was thinking.
#13
Posted 08 July 2008 - 05:41 AM
I tried Zone Alarm for awhile. though it was pretty good, it did not live up to expectations. I have seen several viruses, worms, and trojan horses slip by McAfee and Norton.
A company called Avast has a free download version of their Avast AV that is better than the afore mentioned products. On my first scan, Avast discovered two trojans completely missed by Norton.
A company called Avast has a free download version of their Avast AV that is better than the afore mentioned products. On my first scan, Avast discovered two trojans completely missed by Norton.
#14
Posted 02 June 2009 - 03:06 AM
A note to the author, you have an error...
*"Then 'splain this: If you load Vista's Command Line environment and
type the MEM command, the program reports "655360 bytes available to
MS-DOS. "And it still runs such old DOS programs as the
early spreadsheet Visicalc, a major application in pre-DOS days and one
of the first ported to DOS. If you don't believe me, download the DOS
version of Visicalc and see for yourself."*
I became interested in VisiCalc, being that it played a pivital role within the early days of PCs, and attempted to download and run it. First off I need to make mention that I am currently running Vista 64-bit. Back to the point, Visicalc does not run in cmd. MEM also does not work. I am a bit tech savvy, but not with MS-DOS... If anyone floats on these forums and knows a way to fix/run Visicalc, drop a line, as I might be doing it wrong... However it's doubtful after an hour of pooring over every how-to on cmd... (I am a speed reader, fyi.)
*"Then 'splain this: If you load Vista's Command Line environment and
type the MEM command, the program reports "655360 bytes available to
MS-DOS. "And it still runs such old DOS programs as the
early spreadsheet Visicalc, a major application in pre-DOS days and one
of the first ported to DOS. If you don't believe me, download the DOS
version of Visicalc and see for yourself."*
I became interested in VisiCalc, being that it played a pivital role within the early days of PCs, and attempted to download and run it. First off I need to make mention that I am currently running Vista 64-bit. Back to the point, Visicalc does not run in cmd. MEM also does not work. I am a bit tech savvy, but not with MS-DOS... If anyone floats on these forums and knows a way to fix/run Visicalc, drop a line, as I might be doing it wrong... However it's doubtful after an hour of pooring over every how-to on cmd... (I am a speed reader, fyi.)
Page 1 of 1
Sign In
Register
Help


MultiQuote