Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > NZ Computing > Upgrade motherboard in 9 year old machine

Reply
Thread Tools

Upgrade motherboard in 9 year old machine

 
 
Richard
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-26-2011
On 20/05/2011 8:38 p.m., Crash McBash wrote:

>> You clicked a button saying you agreed to the terms and conditions, did you
>> not?

>
> Probably. I don't specifically recall. My point is that what I did
> worked as I expected and therefore the OP could reasonably expect to
> do they same if they wished to. What's your point?


What peneltys were described in the document anyway?
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-26-2011
In message <irl9qq$o0b$(E-Mail Removed)>, Richard wrote:

> On 20/05/2011 8:38 p.m., Crash McBash wrote:
>
>>> You clicked a button saying you agreed to the terms and conditions, did
>>> you not?

>>
>> Probably. I don't specifically recall. My point is that what I did
>> worked as I expected and therefore the OP could reasonably expect to
>> do they same if they wished to. What's your point?

>
> What peneltys were described in the document anyway?


What does it matter? You said one thing to Microsoft, but did another, with
no intention of living up to what you said in the first place.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Stephen Worthington
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-26-2011
On Thu, 26 May 2011 01:33:08 +1200, "~misfit~"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>Somewhere on teh intarwebs nospam wrote:


>> Why do they have Norton OEM bundled with them?

>
>It's a sucker's game. Norton pay Dragon to bundle the trial version and if
>one in ten people are silly enough to install it, believe the scare tactics
>that Norton throw at them and fork out money it's win/win for them. Norton's
>a bloated pig of a thing so the customer will likely spend more on hardware
>upgrading their PC to run it smoothly... Which of course never happens.


Actually, 2 (or is it 3 now) years ago, Norton completely overhauled
their software and the bloat is well gone. It tests out now as one of
the better security suites.
 
Reply With Quote
 
~misfit~
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-27-2011
Somewhere on teh intarwebs Stephen Worthington wrote:
> On Thu, 26 May 2011 01:33:08 +1200, "~misfit~"
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> Somewhere on teh intarwebs nospam wrote:

>
>>> Why do they have Norton OEM bundled with them?

>>
>> It's a sucker's game. Norton pay Dragon to bundle the trial version
>> and if one in ten people are silly enough to install it, believe the
>> scare tactics that Norton throw at them and fork out money it's
>> win/win for them. Norton's a bloated pig of a thing so the customer
>> will likely spend more on hardware upgrading their PC to run it
>> smoothly... Which of course never happens.

>
> Actually, 2 (or is it 3 now) years ago, Norton completely overhauled
> their software and the bloat is well gone. It tests out now as one of
> the better security suites.


Yeah, I heard that but then I also heard from a reliable source a while
later that it was still way more resource-intensive than most alternatives.
Ergo until I hear otherwise either from a person I trust who's actually used
it or a reliable review site I'll stick with my 'Norton is bloatware'
premise.

Unless you have actual hands-on experience to say otherwise? (I consider you
as a reputable source and if it's first-hand experience then I'll believe
it.)
--
Shaun.

"He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a
monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also
into you." Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche


 
Reply With Quote
 
~misfit~
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-27-2011
Somewhere on teh intarwebs EMB wrote:
> On 27/05/2011 1:54 p.m., ~misfit~ wrote:
>>
>> Yeah, I heard that but then I also heard from a reliable source a
>> while later that it was still way more resource-intensive than most
>> alternatives. Ergo until I hear otherwise either from a person I
>> trust who's actually used it or a reliable review site I'll stick
>> with my 'Norton is bloatware' premise.
>>
>> Unless you have actual hands-on experience to say otherwise? (I
>> consider you as a reputable source and if it's first-hand experience
>> then I'll believe it.)

>
> the bloatware resource-hog AV du jour is currently AVG. They have
> ruined a perfectly functional product.


Yeah, I got sick of it about 18 months ago after using it for half a decade.
Now I use Avast!

Cheers,
--
Shaun.

"He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a
monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also
into you." Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche


 
Reply With Quote
 
John Little
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-27-2011
On May 27, 6:10*pm, EMB <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> the bloatware resource-hog AV du jour is currently AVG. *They have
> ruined a perfectly functional product.


It also can corrupt Windows XP irreparably (that is, a "repair"
installation of windows doesn't fix it, reinstall needed).

Regards, John
 
Reply With Quote
 
John Little
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-28-2011
> On Fri, 27 May 2011 01:36:55 -0700 (PDT), John Little
>
> >It also can corrupt Windows XP irreparably (that is, a "repair"
> >installation of windows doesn't fix it, reinstall needed).

>

Kiwi replied:
>
> I have had the paid Network/Business edition of AVG from V7.0 to 10.0
> running on a Win2k3 server (was SP1 now SP2) and an XP laptop (was SP1
> upgraded to SP2 then SP3) and have never had any corruption issues
> with either the O/S or any applications on the machines in question.
>

Business machines are less likely than those used by teenagers to
stress the abilities of antivirus software. In both the cases there
were teenagers involved.

Regards, John
 
Reply With Quote
 
Stephen Worthington
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-31-2011
On Fri, 27 May 2011 13:54:25 +1200, "~misfit~"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>Somewhere on teh intarwebs Stephen Worthington wrote:
>> On Thu, 26 May 2011 01:33:08 +1200, "~misfit~"
>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>> Somewhere on teh intarwebs nospam wrote:

>>
>>>> Why do they have Norton OEM bundled with them?
>>>
>>> It's a sucker's game. Norton pay Dragon to bundle the trial version
>>> and if one in ten people are silly enough to install it, believe the
>>> scare tactics that Norton throw at them and fork out money it's
>>> win/win for them. Norton's a bloated pig of a thing so the customer
>>> will likely spend more on hardware upgrading their PC to run it
>>> smoothly... Which of course never happens.

>>
>> Actually, 2 (or is it 3 now) years ago, Norton completely overhauled
>> their software and the bloat is well gone. It tests out now as one of
>> the better security suites.

>
>Yeah, I heard that but then I also heard from a reliable source a while
>later that it was still way more resource-intensive than most alternatives.
>Ergo until I hear otherwise either from a person I trust who's actually used
>it or a reliable review site I'll stick with my 'Norton is bloatware'
>premise.
>
>Unless you have actual hands-on experience to say otherwise? (I consider you
>as a reputable source and if it's first-hand experience then I'll believe
>it.)


Yes, I do use Norton 360 at the moment, and it is OK. Any AV software
is going slow things down a bit, but Norton is not too obtrusive. The
background full filesystem check in the 2010 version was a PITA, as it
did not detect I was using the machine again and get out of the way
very well. It tended to push everything into the swap file and then
it took ages to get it back again - I have had to wait over 5 minutes
to get the GUI to work again. The 2011 version is much better at
detecting me using the PC, but still uses too much RAM when running
and causes swapping, but less than the 2010 version.

They have also not fixed a long standing bug in their email support,
which annoys me as I have to disable it temporarily to send emails
from my Windows boxes to my SMTP server. The SMTP server is RFC
compliant, but does one reply which is more specific than most SMTP
servers do (when forwarding emails to the outside world), and Norton
thinks that is a bad message and blocks it. But they do not
acknowledge this as a problem, and I have yet to break through the
first level support to people who might understand.

And I hate the way that they hide what they are doing from you. To
get details when they quarantine something, you have to click about 6
levels deep before you get the directory and file name, which is
actually the very first bit of information I want.

Overall, usable, offers good protection, but still could do a lot
better.
 
Reply With Quote
 
nospam
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-31-2011
On Tue, 31 May 2011 17:06:54 +1200, Stephen Worthington
<(E-Mail Removed)34.nz56.remove_numbers> wrote:

>
>And I hate the way that they hide what they are doing from you. To
>get details when they quarantine something, you have to click about 6
>levels deep before you get the directory and file name, which is
>actually the very first bit of information I want.
>


Hey, I'm glad to hear someone else doesn't like that. I find it
really infuriating. I think Norton do it deliberately to make it look
like it's a sophisticated piece of software doing a really important
job. I'm getting rid of Norton when it expires. I might try Vipre.
 
Reply With Quote
 
~misfit~
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-02-2011
Somewhere on teh intarwebs Crash McBash wrote:
> On Fri, 27 May 2011 03:25:38 +1200, Stephen Worthington
> <(E-Mail Removed)34.nz56.remove_numbers> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 26 May 2011 01:33:08 +1200, "~misfit~"
>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>> Somewhere on teh intarwebs nospam wrote:

>>
>>>> Why do they have Norton OEM bundled with them?
>>>
>>> It's a sucker's game. Norton pay Dragon to bundle the trial version
>>> and if one in ten people are silly enough to install it, believe
>>> the scare tactics that Norton throw at them and fork out money it's
>>> win/win for them. Norton's a bloated pig of a thing so the customer
>>> will likely spend more on hardware upgrading their PC to run it
>>> smoothly... Which of course never happens.

>>
>> Actually, 2 (or is it 3 now) years ago, Norton completely overhauled
>> their software and the bloat is well gone. It tests out now as one
>> of the better security suites.

>
> I saw those reviews and after an unpleasant experience with Bitware
> support over3-pc licensing about 2 years ago I swapped to Norton IS.
> My laptop is nearly 8 years old so no speed daemon and NIS (now the
> latest 2011 version) runs well from my POV.


Thanks for the review Crash.
--
Shaun.

"He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a
monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also
into you." Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
How can I import Office 2000 settings from old machine onto new machine running Office 2003? (re-post) Spin Computer Support 5 10-15-2007 07:15 PM
How can I import Office 2000 settings from old machine onto new machine running Office 2003? Spin Computer Support 0 10-11-2007 12:28 AM
Week of year to full Year Otuatail HTML 4 12-08-2003 07:50 PM



Advertisments