How often do you rebuild your Hard Drive?

Discussion in 'Computer Information' started by Bill, Aug 9, 2004.

  1. Bill

    Bill Guest

    How often do you erase your hard drive (voluntary or otherwise) and have to
    reload the OS and applications?

    For me, it seems about once a year. I am just wondering what others do??
    Bill, Aug 9, 2004
    1. Advertisements

  2. Bill

    Duane Arnold Guest


    Duane :)
    Duane Arnold, Aug 9, 2004
    1. Advertisements

  3. Bill

    mcp6453 Guest

    mcp6453, Aug 9, 2004
  4. Never
    Douglas A. Shrader, Aug 9, 2004
  5. Never
    Hank Sniadoch, Aug 9, 2004
  6. Bill

    Ken Guest

    No. Only when installing new OS or replacing the hard drive (C:)
    Ken, Aug 9, 2004
  7. Bill

    Robert Baer Guest

    Due to the ultra high reliability of Windows OSes as well as I.E., and
    their utter lack of bugs and absolute immunity to virii and hackers
    programs, i find that i have to remove virii, adware, and keyloggers on
    a daily basis.
    That said, if i do not use IE, but instead use Netscape, then i have
    yet to see a problem on the HD (Norton AntiVirus 2000 catches a virus on
    occasion in incoming e-mails).
    PS: i always use a clone of my master HD to run IE, so that AFUs from
    the web are not relevant (takes a few minutes to re-make the clone from
    the master).
    Robert Baer, Aug 9, 2004
  8. Bill

    Jim Berwick Guest

    Heh, I ran a complete scan with Norton 2003 yesterday and found like 30
    viruses on my desktop. All in my Firefox cache, completely safe and in a
    format that makes them impossible to execute. I shudder to think those may
    have automatically executed under IE, instead of Firefox just downloading
    them and doing nothing.
    Jim Berwick, Aug 9, 2004
  9. Bill

    Michael-NC Guest

    Excuse me? There was a virus out there that downloaded itself on IE but has
    since been patched. They'll get around to firewhatever in due time.
    Michael-NC, Aug 9, 2004
  10. Bill

    Michael-NC Guest

    I ran ME on a machine for over 2 years. In that time I upgraded the video
    card, motherboard, CPU, memory and hard drives and never reloaded the OS.
    The machine ran just fine. When XP came out, I dual booted with that same
    copy of ME for 6 more months. I write this on an install of XP that I
    performed when going to my current MB and jettisoning the dual boot config.
    It's been well over a year and I would never consider the foolish notion of
    "reloading" the OS just to get a "fresh start." Absolutely ridiculous. I
    just recently cloned a single ATA hard drive with the OS on it to a Raid 0
    array and all is well. Reloading a OS from scratch is a serious chore and if
    not absolutely necessary, a fool's errand...
    Michael-NC, Aug 9, 2004
  11. Bill

    Duane Arnold Guest


    Duane :)
    Duane Arnold, Aug 9, 2004
  12. Stay away from those porn sites and you won't get so many. ;-)
    The Ancient One, Aug 10, 2004
  13. Bill

    Michael-NC Guest

    That's what I was thinking...

    30 virii is an awful lot...
    Michael-NC, Aug 10, 2004
  14. Bill

    DeMoN LaG Guest

    If you are talking about the whole "IE is popular so people target it
    argument", forget it. There was a time that Netscape had the same market
    share as IE has now, and there were /never/ security problems or exploits
    like there are for IE.
    DeMoN LaG, Aug 10, 2004
  15. Bill

    Thor Guest

    That counter-argument doesn't wash either, since when Netscape had the
    browser market tied up, browsers were far less complex, and far less
    feature-laden than they are now. I would wager that IE 3.0 isn't nearly as
    vulnerable as IE 4, 5, and 6, but it's also a far less complex and far less
    capable browser. Also, back then there was much less of a malware community
    presence. The number of people on the web back then were a fraction of what
    they are now, and with that goes the number of malicious folks who would
    seek to screw over someone elses computer. No sir, there are far too many
    outside factors there to attribute Netscape's "safety" to the browser itself
    in those days.
    Thor, Aug 10, 2004
  16. Bill

    Michael-NC Guest

    I would agree 100% with that assessment. Linux has been hit, Unix has been
    hit, Apache has been hit but the main target remains the vast installed base
    of Windows and IE. I don't think there is any "safe" code out there. I have
    one question, how does Netscape's open code _not_ contribute to a
    vulnerability? Doesn't it make it easier for someone to exploit something
    when they have the code in front of them? I realize that Linux is open and
    has not been widely targeted, why not.
    Michael-NC, Aug 10, 2004
  17. Bill

    Jim Berwick Guest

    Because with so many eyes on it, someone is going to see the problem and
    fix it more quickly than waiting for a hacker to exploit it. MS can get a
    bug in IE and hide its existance and hope it isn't exploited, Firefox can't
    have that luxury because /everyone/ can see the source and find the
    exploit. Also why Linux is not as easily exploited as Windows, and why
    Apache isn't as exploited as IIS.
    Jim Berwick, Aug 10, 2004
  18. Bill

    Thor Guest


    The sad fact remains that of the vast majority of IE security flaws that
    were actually exploited, most were tapped *after* the exploits were
    published by so-called "concerned" parties who make it their business to
    publish each and every flaw they find along with a working example of the
    exploit. For MS to ignore a security flaw is not a good thing, but those
    bent on publicly exposing every security flaw along with a virtual guidebook
    of how to do it, are also very very unethical in my book, because I firmly
    believe that a great many worms, viruses, spyware, etc, would not have been
    created had the security flaws been kept out of the realm of public
    knowledge. Some of the exploits are so damn obscure that most of these
    script kiddies wouldn't have ever known how to even look for such a security
    hole to exploit had it not been spelled out for them. Some may argue that it
    is better to publish the flaws, in order to force MS to fix them, but IMHO,
    the net result of this strategy has been decidedly negative and harmful. I
    agree on one hand, that MS should be held accountable, but if the result of
    the current methodology is that once published, these exploits will be very
    quickly utilized by the malware community resulting in thousands of
    victimized users, I can't see how this ends up being a good thing. The cure
    is worse than the disease. The argument for publishing these flaws may be
    well-intentioned, but I think the end result is that far more people suffer
    as a result of revealing them. Publishing every exploit virtually guarantees
    that some ill-intentioned person will take a good close look at it to see if
    he/she can utilize it to spread a virus, worm, etc. Hiding a security flaw
    is a risk, but at least the odds are more favorable that it will not be
    exploited. At least the risk will be limited to those with the knowledge and
    skills to find the security flaws on their own in order to exploit them. I
    don't believe most of the people involved with malware actually have the
    skills to find many of these obscure flaws. They just take advantage once
    someone else finds them, and shouts it to the world. It's almost akin to
    someone discovering a flaw in your country's national security, and instead
    of reporting it just to the proper authorities, you also publish the info
    along with a step-by-step plan of how to defeat security measures. If it
    results in some terrorist managing to get in and blow some people to bits,
    it's cold comfort to the victim's families that the people who published the
    information did so for "honorable" reasons.
    Thor, Aug 10, 2004
  19. Bill

    Michael-NC Guest

    OK, say someone spots a problem and "fixes" it. How does help the person who
    has the program installed, how is his installation "fixed?"

    I'm thinking of the Windows update model. How do Firefox and Linux users
    patch their software?
    Michael-NC, Aug 10, 2004
  20. Bill

    Jim Berwick Guest

    Firefox users right now (in a pre 1.0 state) have to manually install a fix
    or new version. Linux users have a variety of ways, RedHat/Fedora
    implements a program called "up2date" that checks for updates for all
    packages you have installed. Firefox is scheduled to have an automatic
    update utility built in by 1.0 from what I understand.
    Jim Berwick, Aug 10, 2004
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.