Huge amount of invisible rubbish in C:\WINDOWS\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files

Discussion in 'Computer Support' started by nemo, Mar 18, 2005.

  1. nemo

    nemo Guest

    This is a little long and involved but please bear with me . . .

    All of a sudden last week, my spare space on C:\ virtually disappeared and I
    had to uninstall Adobe Illustrator to get some working space back to get the
    damned PC to do anything.

    The only out-of-the-ordinary things I'd done just before was to download
    Adobe Acrobat 6 after version 3 had disappeared of its own accord and had to
    upgrade to IE6 to do this. This took ages but went well.

    Shortly afterwards I started getting "You've run out of space on Drive C"
    messages.

    Upon checking file by file, I found that Acrobat 6 had left 46M of *.cab
    files and other odds and sods in C:\WINDOWS\Cache. I deleted these, checked
    that program continued to function OK, and then deleted them from the
    Recycle Bin.

    Then I found the real problem:

    C:\WINDOWS\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files showed only two ActiveXs
    and a Shockwave file in its normal view, but its Properties showed 386M -
    of invisible files!!

    Dear Bill Gates: Why the flying f*** won't you let me see everything that's
    on my computer?!! Windoze - Software straight from the Gates of Hell! There
    *must* be an ulterior motive to this!

    I found that IXLA Explorer - a real antique of a graphics viewer, showed the
    full path and the gifs and jpgs in there and by experimentation I discovered
    a way in via Start > Find > Files and Folders with the path

    C:\WINDOWS\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files

    and *.* (all files) in the 'Named' field.

    This showed a few oddly-named folders and literally thousands of small
    files, many of them empty (due to the FAT, they still use up 32K each
    though) and a large number of wbk??????.tmp files with details of various
    things I have shown preference for in my browsing and samples from a huge
    number of my past Newsgroup messages, as if a spyware program had been data
    mining and storing the data there where, as far as the average user might be
    concerned, it would be extremely well hidden.

    I might be wrong in this of course, but that's certainly what it looked
    like.

    It took ages to delete this lot but after getting rid of it and a few other
    unused bits of rubbish, the spare space on C:\ has shot up to 646M, out of a
    partition of 2G (It's a very old PC.), there have been no ill-effects and
    the PC is running a little faster. So now I can put dear old Illustrator
    back in and carry on trying to learn the awkward bloody thing! :eek:)

    I hope this info might help others who might suffer the same trouble.

    In future, I'll clear this folder out after each session. To remind me, I've
    put a *.txt file on my desktop with the instructions to, but I also wonder
    if anyone might know of a way of preventing the offending files being stored
    there in the first place or of making them display in the normal Temporary
    Internet Files window.

    Any help would be most appreciated.

    Thanks in advance,

    Nemo

    PS: Spybot showed up the usual hole in IE6 and Adaware didn't show up
    anything significant. I last ran these two weeks ago and Spybot found seven
    items and deleted them.
     
    nemo, Mar 18, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. nemo

    Mara Guest

    On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 13:48:09 GMT, "nemo" <> wrote:

    <snip>
    >PS: Spybot showed up the usual hole in IE6 and Adaware didn't show up
    >anything significant. I last ran these two weeks ago and Spybot found seven
    >items and deleted them.


    If it's a worm/trojan/virus or a new exploit, they probably won't. And if you're
    running Norton, it might well *be* one of those.

    "Always use a good AV in situations like these - and use more than one."

    --
    "No lusers were harmed in the creation of this usenet article.
    AND I WANT TO KNOW WHY NOT!"
    --glmar04 at twirl.mcc.ac.uk in a.s.r
     
    Mara, Mar 18, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. nemo

    nemo Guest

    "Mara" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 13:48:09 GMT, "nemo" <> wrote:
    >
    > <snip>
    > >PS: Spybot showed up the usual hole in IE6 and Adaware didn't show up
    > >anything significant. I last ran these two weeks ago and Spybot found

    seven
    > >items and deleted them.

    >
    > If it's a worm/trojan/virus or a new exploit, they probably won't. And if

    you're
    > running Norton, it might well *be* one of those.
    >
    > "Always use a good AV in situations like these - and use more than one."
    >

    Will do. Thanks.

    So many people say Norton's crap these days, I'll try something else.
     
    nemo, Mar 18, 2005
    #3
  4. nemo

    Paul - xxx Guest

    nemo composed the following;:
    > "Mara" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 13:48:09 GMT, "nemo" <> wrote:
    >>
    >> <snip>
    >>> PS: Spybot showed up the usual hole in IE6 and Adaware didn't show
    >>> up anything significant. I last ran these two weeks ago and Spybot
    >>> found

    > seven
    >>> items and deleted them.

    >>
    >> If it's a worm/trojan/virus or a new exploit, they probably won't.
    >> And if

    > you're
    >> running Norton, it might well *be* one of those.
    >>
    >> "Always use a good AV in situations like these - and use more than
    >> one."
    >>

    > Will do. Thanks.
    >
    > So many people say Norton's crap these days, I'll try something else.


    Norton AV is good, I like it, though it is way over large for what is
    really needed. However, you do need a larger, faster, newer computer to
    run it effectively.

    I also run any number of other AV utilities, all freely available for
    download, at different times when I cba to scan my systems, which seems
    to work well. The only times I get a virus are on one system when I
    'let' it get one, and when my kids catch one. ;).

    --
    Paul ...
    (8(|) Homer Rules ..... Doh !!!
     
    Paul - xxx, Mar 18, 2005
    #4
  5. nemo

    Mara Guest

    On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 14:42:15 -0000, "Paul - xxx" <>
    wrote:

    >nemo composed the following;:
    >> "Mara" <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >>> On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 13:48:09 GMT, "nemo" <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>> <snip>
    >>>> PS: Spybot showed up the usual hole in IE6 and Adaware didn't show
    >>>> up anything significant. I last ran these two weeks ago and Spybot
    >>>> found

    >> seven
    >>>> items and deleted them.
    >>>
    >>> If it's a worm/trojan/virus or a new exploit, they probably won't.
    >>> And if

    >> you're
    >>> running Norton, it might well *be* one of those.
    >>>
    >>> "Always use a good AV in situations like these - and use more than
    >>> one."
    >>>

    >> Will do. Thanks.
    >>
    >> So many people say Norton's crap these days, I'll try something else.

    >
    >Norton AV is good, I like it, though it is way over large for what is
    >really needed. However, you do need a larger, faster, newer computer to
    >run it effectively.


    I just cleaned a Dell system with 14 worms and trojans on it, one of which was
    Nimda, which has been out since 2001. The machine had been happily running
    Norton Antivirus 2003 since purchased. Norton should have detected it, and the
    others. It did not, even when updated and after repeated runs.

    My record is 194 viruses, 192 of which were still active, on a machine running
    Norton.

    Um, no. No, I don't think I'll recommend it.

    >I also run any number of other AV utilities, all freely available for
    >download, at different times when I cba to scan my systems, which seems
    >to work well. The only times I get a virus are on one system when I
    >'let' it get one, and when my kids catch one. ;).


    --
    "No lusers were harmed in the creation of this usenet article.
    AND I WANT TO KNOW WHY NOT!"
    --glmar04 at twirl.mcc.ac.uk in a.s.r
     
    Mara, Mar 18, 2005
    #5
  6. nemo

    TJ Guest

    Mara <> wrote:

    > On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 14:42:15 -0000, "Paul - xxx"
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> nemo composed the following;:
    >>> "Mara" <> wrote in message
    >>> news:...
    >>>> On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 13:48:09 GMT, "nemo" <>
    >>>> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>> <snip>
    >>>>> PS: Spybot showed up the usual hole in IE6 and Adaware didn't show
    >>>>> up anything significant. I last ran these two weeks ago and Spybot
    >>>>> found
    >>> seven
    >>>>> items and deleted them.
    >>>>
    >>>> If it's a worm/trojan/virus or a new exploit, they probably won't.
    >>>> And if
    >>> you're
    >>>> running Norton, it might well *be* one of those.
    >>>>
    >>>> "Always use a good AV in situations like these - and use more than
    >>>> one."
    >>>>
    >>> Will do. Thanks.
    >>>
    >>> So many people say Norton's crap these days, I'll try something
    >>> else.

    >>
    >> Norton AV is good, I like it, though it is way over large for what is
    >> really needed. However, you do need a larger, faster, newer
    >> computer to run it effectively.

    >
    > I just cleaned a Dell system with 14 worms and trojans on it, one of
    > which was Nimda, which has been out since 2001. The machine had been
    > happily running Norton Antivirus 2003 since purchased. Norton should
    > have detected it, and the others. It did not, even when updated and
    > after repeated runs.
    >
    > My record is 194 viruses, 192 of which were still active, on a
    > machine running Norton.
    >
    > Um, no. No, I don't think I'll recommend it.


    And I'll bet it took you about as long (or longer) to *completely* rid the
    machine of everything Norton, than it did to clean up all the crap it
    missed. What a piece of shit that (Norton) thing has become over the years.
    AOL's "uninstaller" is the worst .... But Norton's is a close second.

    To the OP:
    If by, "the usual hole in IE6" you're referring to the misreported 'DSO
    Exploit' thing? You're not running an up-to-date version of Spybot S&D.
    That's a bug that's been fixed. Look for version 1.3.1TX. And while you're
    at it? Make sure you have the *latest* versions of Ad-Aware and Spyware
    Blaster installed and UPDATED as well.
     
    TJ, Mar 18, 2005
    #6
  7. nemo

    Paul - xxx Guest

    Mara composed the following;:

    > I just cleaned a Dell system with 14 worms and trojans on it, one of
    > which was Nimda, which has been out since 2001. The machine had been
    > happily running Norton Antivirus 2003 since purchased. Norton should
    > have detected it, and the others. It did not, even when updated and
    > after repeated runs.


    Heheheh, I can believe it, unfortunately. But then, I've never found
    any one AV, other than the connection socket, that was totally
    infallible ... ;)

    Closest was probably CA before it went all corporate ...

    > My record is 194 viruses, 192 of which were still active, on a
    > machine running Norton.
    >
    > Um, no. No, I don't think I'll recommend it.


    It seems to work for me. ;)

    --
    Paul ...
    (8(|) Homer Rules ..... Doh !!!
     
    Paul - xxx, Mar 18, 2005
    #7
  8. nemo

    TJ Guest

    Paul - xxx <> wrote:
    > Mara composed the following;:
    >
    >> I just cleaned a Dell system with 14 worms and trojans on it, one of
    >> which was Nimda, which has been out since 2001. The machine had been
    >> happily running Norton Antivirus 2003 since purchased. Norton should
    >> have detected it, and the others. It did not, even when updated and
    >> after repeated runs.

    >
    > Heheheh, I can believe it, unfortunately. But then, I've never found
    > any one AV, other than the connection socket, that was totally
    > infallible ... ;)
    >
    > Closest was probably CA before it went all corporate ...
    >
    >> My record is 194 viruses, 192 of which were still active, on a
    >> machine running Norton.
    >>
    >> Um, no. No, I don't think I'll recommend it.

    >
    > It seems to work for me. ;)


    "Seems" being the operative word.

    Just for fun. Try *completely* uninstalling it. Then let us know how much
    you like it. :)
     
    TJ, Mar 18, 2005
    #8
  9. nemo

    Paul - xxx Guest

    TJ composed the following;:
    > Paul - xxx <> wrote:
    >> Mara composed the following;:
    >>
    >>> I just cleaned a Dell system with 14 worms and trojans on it, one of
    >>> which was Nimda, which has been out since 2001. The machine had been
    >>> happily running Norton Antivirus 2003 since purchased. Norton should
    >>> have detected it, and the others. It did not, even when updated and
    >>> after repeated runs.

    >>
    >> Heheheh, I can believe it, unfortunately. But then, I've never found
    >> any one AV, other than the connection socket, that was totally
    >> infallible ... ;)
    >>
    >> Closest was probably CA before it went all corporate ...
    >>
    >>> My record is 194 viruses, 192 of which were still active, on a
    >>> machine running Norton.
    >>>
    >>> Um, no. No, I don't think I'll recommend it.

    >>
    >> It seems to work for me. ;)

    >
    > "Seems" being the operative word.
    >
    > Just for fun. Try *completely* uninstalling it. Then let us know
    > how much you like it. :)


    I've done it .. not bad.

    ;)


    --
    Paul ...
    (8(|) Homer Rules ..... Doh !!!
     
    Paul - xxx, Mar 18, 2005
    #9
  10. nemo

    Plato Guest

    nemo wrote:
    >
    > unused bits of rubbish, the spare space on C:\ has shot up to 646M, out of a
    > partition of 2G (It's a very old PC.), there have been no ill-effects and


    You dont have a software problem. You have a hardware problem. A 2 gig
    HDD is the problem.








    --
    http://www.bootdisk.com/
     
    Plato, Mar 18, 2005
    #10
  11. nemo

    TJ Guest

    Paul - xxx <> wrote:

    > TJ composed the following;:
    >> Paul - xxx <> wrote:
    >>> Mara composed the following;:
    >>>
    >>>> I just cleaned a Dell system with 14 worms and trojans on it, one
    >>>> of which was Nimda, which has been out since 2001. The machine had
    >>>> been happily running Norton Antivirus 2003 since purchased. Norton
    >>>> should have detected it, and the others. It did not, even when
    >>>> updated and after repeated runs.
    >>>
    >>> Heheheh, I can believe it, unfortunately. But then, I've never
    >>> found any one AV, other than the connection socket, that was totally
    >>> infallible ... ;)
    >>>
    >>> Closest was probably CA before it went all corporate ...
    >>>
    >>>> My record is 194 viruses, 192 of which were still active, on a
    >>>> machine running Norton.
    >>>>
    >>>> Um, no. No, I don't think I'll recommend it.
    >>>
    >>> It seems to work for me. ;)

    >>
    >> "Seems" being the operative word.
    >>
    >> Just for fun. Try *completely* uninstalling it. Then let us know
    >> how much you like it. :)

    >
    > I've done it .. not bad.


    Not just now you didn't. There wasn't enough time between your posts to
    make it happen. :)

    I won't belabor the point. Suffice to say;

    IMO? If, a vendor doesn't care enough to make sure its "uninstall" option
    works properly (Norton leaves loads of shit laying around all over the place
    after using the built-in "uninstall".) Then, why should one expect any
    *better* performance from the program itself?

    Answer: One shouldn't.

    Norton is to AV, as AOL is to ISP.

    It doesn't work properly, it's bloated, and it's damn near impossible to get
    rid of short of formatting.

    The people at Symantec should be ashamed of themselves for ruining what was
    once a decent application.
     
    TJ, Mar 18, 2005
    #11
  12. nemo

    Paul - xxx Guest

    TJ composed the following;:
    > Paul - xxx <> wrote:
    >
    >> TJ composed the following;:
    >>> Paul - xxx <> wrote:
    >>>> Mara composed the following;:
    >>>>
    >>>>> I just cleaned a Dell system with 14 worms and trojans on it, one
    >>>>> of which was Nimda, which has been out since 2001. The machine had
    >>>>> been happily running Norton Antivirus 2003 since purchased. Norton
    >>>>> should have detected it, and the others. It did not, even when
    >>>>> updated and after repeated runs.
    >>>>
    >>>> Heheheh, I can believe it, unfortunately. But then, I've never
    >>>> found any one AV, other than the connection socket, that was
    >>>> totally infallible ... ;)
    >>>>
    >>>> Closest was probably CA before it went all corporate ...
    >>>>
    >>>>> My record is 194 viruses, 192 of which were still active, on a
    >>>>> machine running Norton.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Um, no. No, I don't think I'll recommend it.
    >>>>
    >>>> It seems to work for me. ;)
    >>>
    >>> "Seems" being the operative word.
    >>>
    >>> Just for fun. Try *completely* uninstalling it. Then let us know
    >>> how much you like it. :)

    >>
    >> I've done it .. not bad.

    >
    > Not just now you didn't. There wasn't enough time between your posts
    > to make it happen. :)


    I didn't say I did it now ...

    > The people at Symantec should be ashamed of themselves for ruining
    > what was once a decent application.


    Did I say I used a new version of NAV ?

    And the uninstall option is OK, the OS (XP) uninstall seems to work
    better, but a disk image is best. ;)

    --
    Paul ...
    (8(|) Homer Rules ..... Doh !!!
     
    Paul - xxx, Mar 18, 2005
    #12
  13. nemo

    Mara Guest

    On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 16:19:22 -0000, "Paul - xxx" <>
    wrote:

    >Mara composed the following;:
    >
    >> I just cleaned a Dell system with 14 worms and trojans on it, one of
    >> which was Nimda, which has been out since 2001. The machine had been
    >> happily running Norton Antivirus 2003 since purchased. Norton should
    >> have detected it, and the others. It did not, even when updated and
    >> after repeated runs.

    >
    >Heheheh, I can believe it, unfortunately. But then, I've never found
    >any one AV, other than the connection socket, that was totally
    >infallible ... ;)


    Nor have I. But Norton isn't even in my top 5,000.

    >
    >Closest was probably CA before it went all corporate ...
    >
    >> My record is 194 viruses, 192 of which were still active, on a
    >> machine running Norton.
    >>
    >> Um, no. No, I don't think I'll recommend it.

    >
    >It seems to work for me. ;)


    Well yeah, but you're just weird is all. ;)

    --
    "No lusers were harmed in the creation of this usenet article.
    AND I WANT TO KNOW WHY NOT!"
    --glmar04 at twirl.mcc.ac.uk in a.s.r
     
    Mara, Mar 18, 2005
    #13
  14. nemo

    Mara Guest

    On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 11:21:43 -0500, "TJ" <> wrote:

    >Paul - xxx <> wrote:
    >> Mara composed the following;:
    >>
    >>> I just cleaned a Dell system with 14 worms and trojans on it, one of
    >>> which was Nimda, which has been out since 2001. The machine had been
    >>> happily running Norton Antivirus 2003 since purchased. Norton should
    >>> have detected it, and the others. It did not, even when updated and
    >>> after repeated runs.

    >>
    >> Heheheh, I can believe it, unfortunately. But then, I've never found
    >> any one AV, other than the connection socket, that was totally
    >> infallible ... ;)
    >>
    >> Closest was probably CA before it went all corporate ...
    >>
    >>> My record is 194 viruses, 192 of which were still active, on a
    >>> machine running Norton.
    >>>
    >>> Um, no. No, I don't think I'll recommend it.

    >>
    >> It seems to work for me. ;)

    >
    >"Seems" being the operative word.
    >
    >Just for fun. Try *completely* uninstalling it. Then let us know how much
    >you like it. :)


    TINU.

    --
    "No lusers were harmed in the creation of this usenet article.
    AND I WANT TO KNOW WHY NOT!"
    --glmar04 at twirl.mcc.ac.uk in a.s.r
     
    Mara, Mar 18, 2005
    #14
  15. nemo

    TJ Guest

    Mara <> wrote:

    > On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 11:21:43 -0500, "TJ" <> wrote:
    >
    >> Paul - xxx <> wrote:
    >>> Mara composed the following;:
    >>>
    >>>> I just cleaned a Dell system with 14 worms and trojans on it, one
    >>>> of which was Nimda, which has been out since 2001. The machine had
    >>>> been happily running Norton Antivirus 2003 since purchased. Norton
    >>>> should have detected it, and the others. It did not, even when
    >>>> updated and after repeated runs.
    >>>
    >>> Heheheh, I can believe it, unfortunately. But then, I've never
    >>> found any one AV, other than the connection socket, that was totally
    >>> infallible ... ;)
    >>>
    >>> Closest was probably CA before it went all corporate ...
    >>>
    >>>> My record is 194 viruses, 192 of which were still active, on a
    >>>> machine running Norton.
    >>>>
    >>>> Um, no. No, I don't think I'll recommend it.
    >>>
    >>> It seems to work for me. ;)

    >>
    >> "Seems" being the operative word.
    >>
    >> Just for fun. Try *completely* uninstalling it. Then let us know
    >> how much you like it. :)

    >
    > TINU.


    For the record. I hate that juvenile, TINU/TINW kinda shit.

    Makes about as much sense as posting, "Me too!111111111!!! Or;
    ROFLMAO!!!!1111!!!!!!!

    Emulating AOLer's is bad .... Mmmm-K?
     
    TJ, Mar 18, 2005
    #15
  16. nemo

    Mara Guest

    On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 14:59:13 -0500, "TJ" <> wrote:


    >For the record. <snip>


    Who gives a rat's ass what you think? You do, (or rather, you don't - think,
    that is,) and that's it - you don't speak for anyone else, *certainly* not me,
    lameboi. Take your self-righteous, pompous bullshit and stick it where the sun
    don't shine, sunshine. Oh, I see, you can't - your head's already up there. :)

    "So long, Zippy."

    --
    "No lusers were harmed in the creation of this usenet article.
    AND I WANT TO KNOW WHY NOT!"
    --glmar04 at twirl.mcc.ac.uk in a.s.r
     
    Mara, Mar 18, 2005
    #16
  17. nemo

    TJ Guest

    Mara <> wrote:
    > On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 14:59:13 -0500, "TJ" <> wrote:
    >
    >
    >> For the record. <snip>

    >
    > Who gives a rat's ass what you think? You do, (or rather, you don't -
    > think, that is,) and that's it - you don't speak for anyone else,
    > *certainly* not me, lameboi. Take your self-righteous, pompous
    > bullshit and stick it where the sun don't shine, sunshine. Oh, I see,
    > you can't - your head's already up there. :)


    Nice rant there, missy.

    But now that it's over ...

    Can you jump up and down and stomp your feet while begging me to run to the
    store for plugs and/or rags?
     
    TJ, Mar 19, 2005
    #17
  18. nemo

    Lookout Guest

    On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 09:00:05 -0600, Mara
    <> wrote:

    >On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 14:42:15 -0000, "Paul - xxx" <>
    >wrote:
    >
    >>nemo composed the following;:
    >>> "Mara" <> wrote in message
    >>> news:...
    >>>> On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 13:48:09 GMT, "nemo" <> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>> <snip>
    >>>>> PS: Spybot showed up the usual hole in IE6 and Adaware didn't show
    >>>>> up anything significant. I last ran these two weeks ago and Spybot
    >>>>> found
    >>> seven
    >>>>> items and deleted them.
    >>>>
    >>>> If it's a worm/trojan/virus or a new exploit, they probably won't.
    >>>> And if
    >>> you're
    >>>> running Norton, it might well *be* one of those.
    >>>>
    >>>> "Always use a good AV in situations like these - and use more than
    >>>> one."
    >>>>
    >>> Will do. Thanks.
    >>>
    >>> So many people say Norton's crap these days, I'll try something else.

    >>
    >>Norton AV is good, I like it, though it is way over large for what is
    >>really needed. However, you do need a larger, faster, newer computer to
    >>run it effectively.

    >
    >I just cleaned a Dell system with 14 worms and trojans on it, one of which was
    >Nimda, which has been out since 2001. The machine had been happily running
    >Norton Antivirus 2003 since purchased. Norton should have detected it, and the
    >others. It did not, even when updated and after repeated runs.
    >
    >My record is 194 viruses, 192 of which were still active, on a machine running
    >Norton.
    >
    >Um, no. No, I don't think I'll recommend it.
    >
    >>I also run any number of other AV utilities, all freely available for
    >>download, at different times when I cba to scan my systems, which seems
    >>to work well. The only times I get a virus are on one system when I
    >>'let' it get one, and when my kids catch one. ;).


    We haven't had a virus in 4 or 5 years. 95% of the battle is sitting
    right there at the keyboard.
     
    Lookout, Mar 19, 2005
    #18
  19. nemo

    Paul - xxx Guest

    Lookout composed the following;:
    > On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 09:00:05 -0600, Mara
    > <> wrote:
    >> On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 14:42:15 -0000, "Paul - xxx"


    >>> Norton AV is good, I like it, though it is way over large for what
    >>> is really needed. However, you do need a larger, faster, newer
    >>> computer to run it effectively.

    >>
    >> Um, no. No, I don't think I'll recommend it.

    >
    > We haven't had a virus in 4 or 5 years. 95% of the battle is sitting
    > right there at the keyboard.


    LOL, can't disagree with that. I have always suspected that whilest I
    know Norton may not the best, the way I deal with surfing and 'threats'
    probably has much more to do with not getting a virus than having a
    decent virus killer.

    I suspect I could run as normal without an AV app and still not actually
    get infected, if I tried hard enough.

    --
    Paul ...
    (8(|) Homer Rules ..... Doh !!!
     
    Paul - xxx, Mar 19, 2005
    #19
  20. nemo

    Paul - xxx Guest

    Mara composed the following;:
    > On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 16:19:22 -0000, "Paul - xxx"
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> Mara composed the following;:
    >>
    >>> I just cleaned a Dell system with 14 worms and trojans on it, one of
    >>> which was Nimda, which has been out since 2001. The machine had been
    >>> happily running Norton Antivirus 2003 since purchased. Norton should
    >>> have detected it, and the others. It did not, even when updated and
    >>> after repeated runs.

    >>
    >> Heheheh, I can believe it, unfortunately. But then, I've never found
    >> any one AV, other than the connection socket, that was totally
    >> infallible ... ;)

    >
    > Nor have I. But Norton isn't even in my top 5,000.
    >
    >>
    >> Closest was probably CA before it went all corporate ...
    >>
    >>> My record is 194 viruses, 192 of which were still active, on a
    >>> machine running Norton.
    >>>
    >>> Um, no. No, I don't think I'll recommend it.

    >>
    >> It seems to work for me. ;)

    >
    > Well yeah, but you're just weird is all. ;)


    Now you're just trying to make me blush ...

    --
    Paul ...
    (8(|) Homer Rules ..... Doh !!!
     
    Paul - xxx, Mar 19, 2005
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Henk Jol
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    917
    Moz Champion
    Jan 4, 2005
  2. Scott D. Weber For Unuathorized Thoughts Inc.

    Backing Up Large Files..Or A Large Amount Of Files

    Scott D. Weber For Unuathorized Thoughts Inc., Sep 17, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    1,006
    Joseph
    Sep 19, 2003
  3. gary

    Settings on temporary files

    gary, Feb 28, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    20
    Views:
    861
    Brian H¹©
    Feb 29, 2004
  4. FredHead
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    1,545
    FredHead
    Jan 17, 2007
  5. ZF
    Replies:
    27
    Views:
    2,090
Loading...

Share This Page