Can we really trust the software we use?
Can we really trust the software we use? |
|
| log in |
Message boards : Politics : Can we really trust the software we use?
Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 . . . 17 · Next
| Author | Message |
|---|---|
That sounds suspiciously like you had an original XP installation - they were problematic to install. yep, that it was, but I didn't wait for sp1, reformatting fixed my problems lol until it popped it's gasket and kinda melted it's power supply. | |
ID: 1241320 ·  | |
no drivers to run the cd rom lol That would have to be a controller problem then. Every version of Windows back to Win95 had drivers built into the kernel for CD-ROM drives. DVD-ROM suuport was added in Windows 98SE. Likely whatever controller you were using for the CD-ROM wasn't recognized by Windows. If it was plugged directly into the motherboard, then that would be the motherboard's chipset drivers. Nero was used to run the cd rom. Found out from Microsplat that they were still working drivers because some companies hadn't finished their driver updates. Since Nero is software-only, and Nero interfaces directly with the kernel's driver, that suggests that the problem was elsewhere. I suppose it doesn't matter now, but what lead you to believe that the CD-ROM drive wasn't working if Nero could use it? When you say it didn't work, could Windows still read the contents of a disc but you couldn't do something else? | |
| ID: 1241324 · | |
That sounds suspiciously like you had an original XP installation - they were problematic to install. Ah, so then it was a controller problem! Windows XP didn't have drivers for the then new SATA controllers (up to that point, everything was PATA). Which leads me back to: the OS's drivers are only as current as when it was compiled. Windows XP SP1 added limited support for SATA drives, SP2 & SP3 were much better. Certainly can't fault XP for that since the code writers cannot possibly guarantee compatibility with a future standard. | |
| ID: 1241325 · | |
|
true, but they could have warned us xD | |
| ID: 1241381 · | |
true, but they could have warned us xD They've made up for that mistake. Now they're calling them Previews... :) ____________    | |
| ID: 1241385 · | |
true, but they could have warned us xD In the same way that fortune tellers forewarn people about pending events? I don't mean this to sound sarcastic, but anyone who keeps up with Windows news or the Tech industry in general knew about the OSes limitations. Should the average user have known about it? Depends on how much research they do, like with things in life (not just computers). | |
| ID: 1241389 · | |
|
That's true. However, most home users want their computers to just boot up & go. Many just don't want to "look under the hood & understand how they work". | |
| ID: 1241396 · | |
|
At that point in time all I knew about computers was how to turn it on and open up the browser or play Diablo 2 LOD lol | |
| ID: 1241399 · | |
That's true. However, most home users want their computers to just boot up & go. Many just don't want to "look under the hood & understand how they work". Agreed, but any engineer will tell you that the world doesn't really work that way. Progress is being made to make it "seem" that way, but it takes a lot of work and trial and error. | |
| ID: 1241411 · | |
 Gary Charpentier Volunteer tester  Send message Joined: 25 Dec 00 Posts: 10325 Credit: 5,094,810 RAC: 6,276  | |
true, but they could have warned us xD The average user wants an appliance. They refuse to know more. Perhaps why I think the average user should look at Apple. They build appliances. And appliances need to be closed systems. ____________   | |
| ID: 1241458 · | |
The average user wants an appliance. They refuse to know more. Perhaps why I think the average user should look at Apple. They build appliances. And appliances need to be closed systems. Apple knew that which is why they're the biggest company. Microsoft has come late to the table & attemting to do the same with Win 8. Personally, I can't see them getting anywhere near Apple. ____________ | |
| ID: 1241459 · | |
true, but they could have warned us xD Agreed, just like the average driver just wants to drive the car. Though Apple has had their share of goofs and gaffs. | |
| ID: 1241461 · | |
|
lol my firt computer was a apple. | |
| ID: 1241466 · | |
The truth is that much of the "domestic/commercial" software we rely on is of a fairly low standard. Freeware and trialware are tasters for the full product, and the writers also rely on their website advertising for income to offset the cost of producing it. They are loss leaders and as such are likely written accordingly. Of course cheap software also is unlikely to be written to a high standard in the first place. It is expensive to produce drivers for new O/S and companies save money by not producing them for hardware much more than 5 years old. I have a great scanner which I can't use with Win 7 as no-one has written a driver for it. That also encourages people to buy new hardware as well, so the hardware & software people are all in cahoots with each other. Also some O/S's like Millennium and Vista did not have a popular take-up, so money spent writing divers across the board never paid off. That is why Win 7 stuff is scarce and the same will happen to Win 8. Most up-market antivirus programs use heuristic analysis when scanning for problems. If they find a file that "looks" like a virus, and is exhibiting "virus like" behaviour, and it is not listed in their table of known viruses, then they err on the side of safety, and assume that it is a virus. If the end user knows different, then they can instruct the virus scanner to ignore that file in future. But that is just the easy bit. Some sophisticated viruses are clever enough to put out false signatures masking what they are actually doing being the scenes. But perhaps the most pernicious are keyloggers, they work quietly in the background recording and transmitting visited websites, logins, and passwords which get sent to an anonymous server in Eastern Europe somewhere. They don't look like viruses and don't behave like one, but can often do the most damage. The only real answer has always been to use a top end professional anti-virus product, keep it up to date, and use your computer sensibly i.e. don't visit dodgy websites and don't download unknown files. This includes opening emails from people you don't know, if its that important they'll contact you some other way. Also it's a lack of end user savvy that is the biggest problem. Most new machines come with a 3 month trial version of Norton software (currently 360) and I have found many rigs where that expired over a year previously. Either they simply didn't realise it or didn't want to pay for it. Whatever, using 12 month old antivirus software is about as much use as a chocolate fireguard! And finally my pet beef. AVG Free and Avast! Free, are good little programs that are better than nothing, but they deliberately design their websites to make it difficult to download the free versions. You are constantly presented with large coloured boxes telling you to click here to download, and when you do you find you have installed a trial of the paid for version! I suppose you can't blame them but it is irritating nevertheless. | |
| ID: 1241632 · | |
|
James Sotherden Volunteer moderator  Send message Joined: 16 May 99 Posts: 6051 Credit: 14,699,026 RAC: 20,533 | |
|
^1 | |
| ID: 1241671 · | |
|
Get Placebo AV. Problem solved :-) DOXdesk wrote: Today's AV is a dead loss. But you can't simply not install any, or everyone will complain. That's where PlaceboAV comes in! It's the fantasic anti-virus solution that's super-fast and absolutely reliable... because it does nothing at all. PlaceboAV download ____________ I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...  | |
| ID: 1241673 · | |
|
Hehehe | |
| ID: 1241682 · | |
^1 Not sure of Avast but AVG started doing that since v9. Since then I always use CNET, that way don't get the irritating search. ____________ | |
| ID: 1241699 · | |
Hehehe Sorry about that, the first link told the story: dedoimedo wrote: All right. So let me show you this thing. Head over to doxdesk.com and grab the executable. Now, be warned! It is flagged as riskware if you run it against a cocktail scanner like Jotti or VirusTotal. What this means is that anti-virus companies deny liability by marking the product potentially bad. What this also means is that if you're not a skilled user capable of discerning real malware from a joke, by using debuggers, network sniffers and whatnot, then you should not be running this program in the first place. ____________ I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ... | |
| ID: 1241721 · | |
|
Trust Microsoft. Trust the government. They are both here to help you. | |
| ID: 1241801 · | |
Message boards : Politics : Can we really trust the software we use?
| Copyright © 2013 University of California |
