Vista Circles of Life and Death

Eric wrote:<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
> "+Bob+" <nomailplease@example.com> wrote in message
> newsff7555umf0n8lmg0bg6n8nalqfbs1br30@4ax.com...<!--coloro:green--><span style="color:green <!--/coloro-->
>> On Tue, 7 Jul 2009 14:59:55 -0400, "Eric" <someone@idontwantspam.com>
>> wrote:
>><!--coloro:darkred--><span style="color:darkred <!--/coloro-->
>>> If you're such a brilliant computer scientist why don't you enlighten us.
>>> I'm not marching in your gay pride parade.
>>> If McAfee is "using too much resources" I have yet to notice any impact.<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
>> Ohh, gay jokes. You must be quite the enlightened soul.
>>
>> Top poster too.
>>
>> Bye.<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
>
> I can bottom post too, so what? Top posting is easier to read, particularly
> if you include a long quote. I see you only quoted one post and snipped the
> rest of the thread. Some on these forums look down on that too. It's a
> matter of preference. You're still a troll, coming on here to bash other
> people's software choices while providing no facts to support your argument
> much less any alternative suggestion with any facts to support that, so go
> back under your bridge.
>
> <!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

Why waste time with Waste-Of-Skin+bob+?

 

"Vista Succubus Hunter" <Sucuubus@Hunter.com> wrote in message
news:etzuT89$JHA.4168@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
> Eric wrote:<!--coloro:green--><span style="color:green <!--/coloro-->
>> "+Bob+" <nomailplease@example.com> wrote in message
>> newsff7555umf0n8lmg0bg6n8nalqfbs1br30@4ax.com...<!--coloro:darkred--><span style="color:darkred <!--/coloro-->
>>> On Tue, 7 Jul 2009 14:59:55 -0400, "Eric" <someone@idontwantspam.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> If you're such a brilliant computer scientist why don't you enlighten
>>>> us.
>>>> I'm not marching in your gay pride parade.
>>>> If McAfee is "using too much resources" I have yet to notice any
>>>> impact.
>>> Ohh, gay jokes. You must be quite the enlightened soul.
>>>
>>> Top poster too.
>>>
>>> Bye.<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
>>
>> I can bottom post too, so what? Top posting is easier to read,
>> particularly if you include a long quote. I see you only quoted one post
>> and snipped the rest of the thread. Some on these forums look down on
>> that too. It's a matter of preference. You're still a troll, coming on
>> here to bash other people's software choices while providing no facts to
>> support your argument much less any alternative suggestion with any facts
>> to support that, so go back under your bridge.<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
>
> Why waste time with Waste-Of-Skin+bob+?<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

He bashed McAfee, so I wanted to see if he had anything of substance to say
on the matter. Apparently he was just spewing random hate for no apparent
reason. I don't understand why trolls in this forum want to bash McAfee.
One even called it a resource hog, so out of curiosity I checked the
resource usage on my home PC. It's less than 1 MB RAM. Just on startup my
system is using 1.5 GB RAM (I am running aero), so since I got the 4 GB PC I
think I can spare 1 MB.

 

"+Bob+" <nomailplease@example.com> wrote in message
news0m955l4sj2rgk88lemt6mhrb4oahkid3n@4ax.com...<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
> On Wed, 8 Jul 2009 11:26:58 -0400, "Eric" <someone@idontwantspam.com>
> wrote:
><!--coloro:green--><span style="color:green <!--/coloro-->
>>
>>"Vista Succubus Hunter" <Sucuubus@Hunter.com> wrote in message
>>news:etzuT89$JHA.4168@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...<!--coloro:darkred--><span style="color:darkred <!--/coloro-->
>>> Eric wrote:
>>>> "+Bob+" <nomailplease@example.com> wrote in message
>>>> newsff7555umf0n8lmg0bg6n8nalqfbs1br30@4ax.com...
>>>>> On Tue, 7 Jul 2009 14:59:55 -0400, "Eric" <someone@idontwantspam.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> If you're such a brilliant computer scientist why don't you enlighten
>>>>>> us.
>>>>>> I'm not marching in your gay pride parade.
>>>>>> If McAfee is "using too much resources" I have yet to notice any
>>>>>> impact.
>>>>> Ohh, gay jokes. You must be quite the enlightened soul.
>>>>>
>>>>> Top poster too.
>>>>>
>>>>> Bye.
>>>>
>>>> I can bottom post too, so what? Top posting is easier to read,
>>>> particularly if you include a long quote. I see you only quoted one
>>>> post
>>>> and snipped the rest of the thread. Some on these forums look down on
>>>> that too. It's a matter of preference. You're still a troll, coming
>>>> on
>>>> here to bash other people's software choices while providing no facts
>>>> to
>>>> support your argument much less any alternative suggestion with any
>>>> facts
>>>> to support that, so go back under your bridge.
>>>
>>> Why waste time with Waste-Of-Skin+bob+?<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
>>
>>He bashed McAfee, so I wanted to see if he had anything of substance to
>>say
>>on the matter. Apparently he was just spewing random hate for no apparent
>>reason. I don't understand why trolls in this forum want to bash McAfee.
>>One even called it a resource hog, so out of curiosity I checked the
>>resource usage on my home PC. It's less than 1 MB RAM. Just on startup
>>my
>>system is using 1.5 GB RAM (I am running aero), so since I got the 4 GB PC
>>I
>>think I can spare 1 MB.
>><!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
>
> Google "mcafee" and "resource hog" dimwit.<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

Why don't you Google it, you little troll. I already told you I checked the
resources and it's using hardly anything on my Vista Home Premium machine.
Maybe your sources are old news? You have yet to post one fact to support
your flaming.

 

On Wed, 8 Jul 2009 13:41:59 -0400, "Eric" <someone@idontwantspam.com>
wrote:
<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
>
>"+Bob+" <nomailplease@example.com> wrote in message
>news0m955l4sj2rgk88lemt6mhrb4oahkid3n@4ax.com...<!--coloro:green--><span style="color:green <!--/coloro-->
>> On Wed, 8 Jul 2009 11:26:58 -0400, "Eric" <someone@idontwantspam.com>
>> wrote:
>><!--coloro:darkred--><span style="color:darkred <!--/coloro-->
>>>
>>>"Vista Succubus Hunter" <Sucuubus@Hunter.com> wrote in message
>>>news:etzuT89$JHA.4168@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>>> Eric wrote:
>>>>> "+Bob+" <nomailplease@example.com> wrote in message
>>>>> newsff7555umf0n8lmg0bg6n8nalqfbs1br30@4ax.com...
>>>>>> On Tue, 7 Jul 2009 14:59:55 -0400, "Eric" <someone@idontwantspam.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If you're such a brilliant computer scientist why don't you enlighten
>>>>>>> us.
>>>>>>> I'm not marching in your gay pride parade.
>>>>>>> If McAfee is "using too much resources" I have yet to notice any
>>>>>>> impact.
>>>>>> Ohh, gay jokes. You must be quite the enlightened soul.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Top poster too.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Bye.
>>>>>
>>>>> I can bottom post too, so what? Top posting is easier to read,
>>>>> particularly if you include a long quote. I see you only quoted one
>>>>> post
>>>>> and snipped the rest of the thread. Some on these forums look down on
>>>>> that too. It's a matter of preference. You're still a troll, coming
>>>>> on
>>>>> here to bash other people's software choices while providing no facts
>>>>> to
>>>>> support your argument much less any alternative suggestion with any
>>>>> facts
>>>>> to support that, so go back under your bridge.
>>>>
>>>> Why waste time with Waste-Of-Skin+bob+?
>>>
>>>He bashed McAfee, so I wanted to see if he had anything of substance to
>>>say
>>>on the matter. Apparently he was just spewing random hate for no apparent
>>>reason. I don't understand why trolls in this forum want to bash McAfee.
>>>One even called it a resource hog, so out of curiosity I checked the
>>>resource usage on my home PC. It's less than 1 MB RAM. Just on startup
>>>my
>>>system is using 1.5 GB RAM (I am running aero), so since I got the 4 GB PC
>>>I
>>>think I can spare 1 MB.
>>><!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
>>
>> Google "mcafee" and "resource hog" dimwit.<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
>
>Why don't you Google it, you little troll. I already told you I checked the
>resources and it's using hardly anything on my Vista Home Premium machine.
>Maybe your sources are old news? You have yet to post one fact to support
>your flaming.
><!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

First off, bigot boy, you need to learn what the definition of a troll
is.

Second, do your own freaking research. If you're too lazy to even do
that, you deserve whatever you get.

 

"+Bob+" <nomailplease@example.com> wrote in message
news:s9q955hkn54nru4ghljad6bugbbh4p78i6@4ax.com...<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
> First off, bigot boy, you need to learn what the definition of a troll
> is.
>
> Second, do your own freaking research. If you're too lazy to even do
> that, you deserve whatever you get.<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

Ok troll, that's just sad. You're the one bashing on McAfee for no apparent
reason and I'm supposed to research why.
Seems to me you're the lazy sob.

 

Obviously you know nothing about computers and the reasons are #1 you use
McAfee and #2 you use AOL. Anyone who knows anything about computers will
tell you to get rid of both!!

"Eric" <someone@idontwantspam.com> wrote in message
news:e9OJelw$JHA.3732@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
> I don't know or care if McAfee is a resource "hog" because I haven't seen
> it cause any problems. I ran McAfee software on my old PC, a 1 GHz Athlon
> with 512 MB RAM running Windows ME, with no noticeable resource issues.
> We run McAfee software at work on everything down to a Pentium III 800 MHz
> with 256 MB RAM running Windows XP Pro, with no noticeable resource
> issues.
>
> Avg may be small but I don't know about good. People who know very little
> about computers want to try it apparently because it comes up in a Google
> search for "free antivirus", but it apparently has issues. I've seen it
> cause major conflicts with AOL for one. While you may be an ignorant kid
> who says "don't use AOL" as your solution, you would apparently have no
> experience working with users. The typical user doesn't care to switch to
> gmail just because it's the latest fad. Older users especially prefer to
> avoid change.
>
> I don't care if you have to pay for McAfee. I already said it's free.
> Comcast provides it to all of their internet subscribers.
>
> "Drew" <Aylen1957@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:238CCC49-2D64-400A-86FF-5C3447CF46B6@microsoft.com...<!--coloro:green--><span style="color:green <!--/coloro-->
>> You are kidding right?? Mcafee is and has always been one of if not the
>> biggest resource hog there is! Avg is small and is a good program. One
>> that is even smaller would be Avast, both are free where as Mcafee the
>> bloated is not
>>
>> "Eric" <someone@idontwantspam.com> wrote in message
>> news:#F4S0#R8JHA.2120@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...<!--coloro:darkred--><span style="color:darkred <!--/coloro-->
>>> MS new AV program reportedly is free.
>>> I haven't looked into it myself to see if it's a totally free program or
>>> if it's some kind of trial version like the Windows 7 download they've
>>> had out.
>>> OneCare did rate highly though. I haven't personally tried that one
>>> either because I get McAfee free and it runs smoothly. I haven't gotten
>>> any sort of viruses with it on and it hasn't caused any conflicts. The
>>> biggest free AV program is AVG and all I've heard is it's a hog and it
>>> conflicts with other software.
>>>
>>>
>>> "+Bob+" <nomailplease@example.com> wrote in message
>>> news:rhdn359qsapk6tq1bohdmmvvfslfocm3t5@4ax.com...
>>>> On Fri, 19 Jun 2009 08:44:23 -0400, "Eric" <someone@idontwantspam.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>So get rid of Live OneCare.
>>>>>MS just released a new free AV program.
>>>>
>>>> And skip the new one too. There are established free programs
>>>> available that will not be such resource hogs.
>>>
>>><!--colorc--><!--/colorc--><!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
>
> <!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

 

Obviously you know nothing about anything, since anyone who knows anything
about anything will tell you if it isn't broken don't fix it.

McAfee as far as I'm aware is still one of the best products. I have yet to
see anyone get a virus while running it so I don't care which test you're
whining that it fails. Every AV program fails someone's test.

I have no problems with AOL. They were one of the first companies to offer
email, so many people who have used PCs for more than a decade just stuck
with them. I heard someone say gmail is simpler, but what could be simpler?
AOL has a desktop program and webmail. If I run the desktop program it
automatically signs in and with a click I can see my InBox. I read my mail
and it moves it to old mail which eventually gets deleted. With the click
of a button I can tell it not to delete for the few messages I want to stay
in the InBox, or I can click or drag to move it to a save folder. I can
save mail on my PC or on their server. In addition they also offer news,
instant messaging, and chat rooms. Now that all of AOL is free (unless you
need their dialup connection), I can't find any reason not to use it other
than some snob geeks saying it's "outdated" and we should all update to the
gmail fad. Get back in your hole, troll.

"Drew" <aylen1957@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:EB3A4378-703B-49D6-87C0-4336B58CD768@microsoft.com...<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
> Obviously you know nothing about computers and the reasons are #1 you use
> McAfee and #2 you use AOL. Anyone who knows anything about computers will
> tell you to get rid of both!!
>
> "Eric" <someone@idontwantspam.com> wrote in message
> news:e9OJelw$JHA.3732@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...<!--coloro:green--><span style="color:green <!--/coloro-->
>> I don't know or care if McAfee is a resource "hog" because I haven't seen
>> it cause any problems. I ran McAfee software on my old PC, a 1 GHz
>> Athlon with 512 MB RAM running Windows ME, with no noticeable resource
>> issues. We run McAfee software at work on everything down to a Pentium
>> III 800 MHz with 256 MB RAM running Windows XP Pro, with no noticeable
>> resource issues.
>>
>> Avg may be small but I don't know about good. People who know very
>> little about computers want to try it apparently because it comes up in a
>> Google search for "free antivirus", but it apparently has issues. I've
>> seen it cause major conflicts with AOL for one. While you may be an
>> ignorant kid who says "don't use AOL" as your solution, you would
>> apparently have no experience working with users. The typical user
>> doesn't care to switch to gmail just because it's the latest fad. Older
>> users especially prefer to avoid change.
>>
>> I don't care if you have to pay for McAfee. I already said it's free.
>> Comcast provides it to all of their internet subscribers.
>>
>> "Drew" <Aylen1957@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>> news:238CCC49-2D64-400A-86FF-5C3447CF46B6@microsoft.com...<!--coloro:darkred--><span style="color:darkred <!--/coloro-->
>>> You are kidding right?? Mcafee is and has always been one of if not the
>>> biggest resource hog there is! Avg is small and is a good program. One
>>> that is even smaller would be Avast, both are free where as Mcafee the
>>> bloated is not
>>>
>>> "Eric" <someone@idontwantspam.com> wrote in message
>>> news:#F4S0#R8JHA.2120@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>>>> MS new AV program reportedly is free.
>>>> I haven't looked into it myself to see if it's a totally free program
>>>> or if it's some kind of trial version like the Windows 7 download
>>>> they've had out.
>>>> OneCare did rate highly though. I haven't personally tried that one
>>>> either because I get McAfee free and it runs smoothly. I haven't
>>>> gotten any sort of viruses with it on and it hasn't caused any
>>>> conflicts. The biggest free AV program is AVG and all I've heard is
>>>> it's a hog and it conflicts with other software.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "+Bob+" <nomailplease@example.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:rhdn359qsapk6tq1bohdmmvvfslfocm3t5@4ax.com...
>>>>> On Fri, 19 Jun 2009 08:44:23 -0400, "Eric" <someone@idontwantspam.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>So get rid of Live OneCare.
>>>>>>MS just released a new free AV program.
>>>>>
>>>>> And skip the new one too. There are established free programs
>>>>> available that will not be such resource hogs.
>>>>
>>>><!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
>>
>> <!--colorc--><!--/colorc--><!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

 

Eric wrote:<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
> Obviously you know nothing about anything, since anyone who knows anything
> about anything will tell you if it isn't broken don't fix it.
>
> McAfee as far as I'm aware is still one of the best products. I have yet to
> see anyone get a virus while running it so I don't care which test you're
> whining that it fails. Every AV program fails someone's test.
>
> I have no problems with AOL. They were one of the first companies to offer
> email, so many people who have used PCs for more than a decade just stuck
> with them. I heard someone say gmail is simpler, but what could be simpler?
> AOL has a desktop program and webmail. If I run the desktop program it
> automatically signs in and with a click I can see my InBox. I read my mail
> and it moves it to old mail which eventually gets deleted. With the click
> of a button I can tell it not to delete for the few messages I want to stay
> in the InBox, or I can click or drag to move it to a save folder. I can
> save mail on my PC or on their server. In addition they also offer news,
> instant messaging, and chat rooms. Now that all of AOL is free (unless you
> need their dialup connection), I can't find any reason not to use it other
> than some snob geeks saying it's "outdated" and we should all update to the
> gmail fad. Get back in your hole, troll.<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

Oh dear, there really is an AOL user left. Will wonders ever cease?

Alias

 

Alias wrote:<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
>
> Oh dear, there really is an AOL user left. Will wonders ever cease?
>
> Alias<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

AOL.
That brings back memories. I got kicked off AOL in '94 dor using a
program that put me int he free area while I downloaded nudy pics.
Once I got kicked off AOL I went to CompuServ and did the same thing
until 1996 when I discovered usenet. Then I went to college and
discovered usenet + fast connection = need for a bigger hard drive.

Oh the memories!

 

I have no time for punks like you who obviously does not want help.. all you
have done is defend a bad program and now you are trying to convince people
that AOL is good.
Tell me if AOL is so great why are they steadily losing customers and have
been for years? Mcafee is not one of the best products unless you are
speaking about bloatware! That is why anybody who has a understanding of
computers does not use it. Try posting the question again but this time ask
for advice on who would use either of these.
Don't worry I will not answer the post because I will not see it!..... PLONK
another idiot for the killfile!

"Eric" <someone@idontwantspam.com> wrote in message
news:e0qHSNYBKHA.1380@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
> Obviously you know nothing about anything, since anyone who knows anything
> about anything will tell you if it isn't broken don't fix it.
>
> McAfee as far as I'm aware is still one of the best products. I have yet
> to see anyone get a virus while running it so I don't care which test
> you're whining that it fails. Every AV program fails someone's test.
>
> I have no problems with AOL. They were one of the first companies to
> offer email, so many people who have used PCs for more than a decade just
> stuck with them. I heard someone say gmail is simpler, but what could be
> simpler? AOL has a desktop program and webmail. If I run the desktop
> program it automatically signs in and with a click I can see my InBox. I
> read my mail and it moves it to old mail which eventually gets deleted.
> With the click of a button I can tell it not to delete for the few
> messages I want to stay in the InBox, or I can click or drag to move it to
> a save folder. I can save mail on my PC or on their server. In addition
> they also offer news, instant messaging, and chat rooms. Now that all of
> AOL is free (unless you need their dialup connection), I can't find any
> reason not to use it other than some snob geeks saying it's "outdated" and
> we should all update to the gmail fad. Get back in your hole, troll.
>
> "Drew" <aylen1957@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:EB3A4378-703B-49D6-87C0-4336B58CD768@microsoft.com...<!--coloro:green--><span style="color:green <!--/coloro-->
>> Obviously you know nothing about computers and the reasons are #1 you use
>> McAfee and #2 you use AOL. Anyone who knows anything about computers will
>> tell you to get rid of both!!
>>
>> "Eric" <someone@idontwantspam.com> wrote in message
>> news:e9OJelw$JHA.3732@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...<!--coloro:darkred--><span style="color:darkred <!--/coloro-->
>>> I don't know or care if McAfee is a resource "hog" because I haven't
>>> seen it cause any problems. I ran McAfee software on my old PC, a 1 GHz
>>> Athlon with 512 MB RAM running Windows ME, with no noticeable resource
>>> issues. We run McAfee software at work on everything down to a Pentium
>>> III 800 MHz with 256 MB RAM running Windows XP Pro, with no noticeable
>>> resource issues.
>>>
>>> Avg may be small but I don't know about good. People who know very
>>> little about computers want to try it apparently because it comes up in
>>> a Google search for "free antivirus", but it apparently has issues.
>>> I've seen it cause major conflicts with AOL for one. While you may be
>>> an ignorant kid who says "don't use AOL" as your solution, you would
>>> apparently have no experience working with users. The typical user
>>> doesn't care to switch to gmail just because it's the latest fad. Older
>>> users especially prefer to avoid change.
>>>
>>> I don't care if you have to pay for McAfee. I already said it's free.
>>> Comcast provides it to all of their internet subscribers.
>>>
>>> "Drew" <Aylen1957@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>>> news:238CCC49-2D64-400A-86FF-5C3447CF46B6@microsoft.com...
>>>> You are kidding right?? Mcafee is and has always been one of if not the
>>>> biggest resource hog there is! Avg is small and is a good program. One
>>>> that is even smaller would be Avast, both are free where as Mcafee the
>>>> bloated is not
>>>>
>>>> "Eric" <someone@idontwantspam.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:#F4S0#R8JHA.2120@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>>>>> MS new AV program reportedly is free.
>>>>> I haven't looked into it myself to see if it's a totally free program
>>>>> or if it's some kind of trial version like the Windows 7 download
>>>>> they've had out.
>>>>> OneCare did rate highly though. I haven't personally tried that one
>>>>> either because I get McAfee free and it runs smoothly. I haven't
>>>>> gotten any sort of viruses with it on and it hasn't caused any
>>>>> conflicts. The biggest free AV program is AVG and all I've heard is
>>>>> it's a hog and it conflicts with other software.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "+Bob+" <nomailplease@example.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:rhdn359qsapk6tq1bohdmmvvfslfocm3t5@4ax.com...
>>>>>> On Fri, 19 Jun 2009 08:44:23 -0400, "Eric"
>>>>>> <someone@idontwantspam.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>So get rid of Live OneCare.
>>>>>>>MS just released a new free AV program.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And skip the new one too. There are established free programs
>>>>>> available that will not be such resource hogs.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>><!--colorc--><!--/colorc--><!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
>
> <!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

 

"Eric" <someone@idontwantspam.com> wrote in message
news:e0qHSNYBKHA.1380@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
>
> I have no problems with AOL. They were one of the first companies to
> offer email, so many people who have used PCs for more than a decade just
> stuck with them.<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

It's not the functionality of AOL that is the problem - have you EVER tried
to uninstall AOL? It's almost nigh impossible without re-formatting the HDD
and re-installing the OS.
So much so that many people consider AOL (the program) to be a virus....

 

Bill Yanaire wrote:<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
> Alias wrote:<!--coloro:green--><span style="color:green <!--/coloro-->
>> Eric wrote:<!--coloro:darkred--><span style="color:darkred <!--/coloro-->
>>> I don't know or care if McAfee is a resource "hog" because I haven't
>>> seen it cause any problems. I ran McAfee software on my old PC, a 1
>>> GHz Athlon with 512 MB RAM running Windows ME, with no noticeable
>>> resource issues. We run McAfee software at work on everything down
>>> to a Pentium III 800 MHz with 256 MB RAM running Windows XP Pro, with
>>> no noticeable resource issues.
>>>
>>> Avg may be small but I don't know about good. People who know very
>>> little about computers want to try it apparently because it comes up
>>> in a Google search for "free antivirus", but it apparently has
>>> issues. I've seen it cause major conflicts with AOL for one. While
>>> you may be an ignorant kid who says "don't use AOL" as your solution,
>>> you would apparently have no experience working with users. The
>>> typical user doesn't care to switch to gmail just because it's the
>>> latest fad. Older users especially prefer to avoid change.
>>>
>>> I don't care if you have to pay for McAfee. I already said it's
>>> free. Comcast provides it to all of their internet subscribers.<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
>>
>> McAfee is one of the worst in detecting malware. I bet if you install
>> Avast on your McAfee computers, it will find viruses that McAfee let
>> slide. That said, if you use Linux, you needn't bother about what anti
>> virus program you should use.
>>
>> Alias<!--coloro:darkred--><span style="color:darkred <!--/coloro-->
>>><!--colorc--><!--/colorc--><!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
>
> What you fail to understand is if the OP uses Linux, he won't be able to
> run his programs.<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

"His" programs? And, pray tell, what programs did the OP write?
<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
> That means his Linux system will just be sitting
> there and he will get nothing done. That makes Linux worth exactly what
> you pay for it: NOTHING.<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

Lying again, eh?

Alias

 

Bill Yanaire wrote:<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
> Alias wrote:<!--coloro:green--><span style="color:green <!--/coloro-->
>> Eric wrote:<!--coloro:darkred--><span style="color:darkred <!--/coloro-->
>>> Obviously you know nothing about anything, since anyone who knows
>>> anything about anything will tell you if it isn't broken don't fix it.
>>>
>>> McAfee as far as I'm aware is still one of the best products. I have
>>> yet to see anyone get a virus while running it so I don't care which
>>> test you're whining that it fails. Every AV program fails someone's
>>> test.
>>>
>>> I have no problems with AOL. They were one of the first companies to
>>> offer email, so many people who have used PCs for more than a decade
>>> just stuck with them. I heard someone say gmail is simpler, but what
>>> could be simpler? AOL has a desktop program and webmail. If I run
>>> the desktop program it automatically signs in and with a click I can
>>> see my InBox. I read my mail and it moves it to old mail which
>>> eventually gets deleted. With the click of a button I can tell it
>>> not to delete for the few messages I want to stay in the InBox, or I
>>> can click or drag to move it to a save folder. I can save mail on my
>>> PC or on their server. In addition they also offer news, instant
>>> messaging, and chat rooms. Now that all of AOL is free (unless you
>>> need their dialup connection), I can't find any reason not to use it
>>> other than some snob geeks saying it's "outdated" and we should all
>>> update to the gmail fad. Get back in your hole, troll.<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
>>
>> Oh dear, there really is an AOL user left. Will wonders ever cease?
>>
>> Alias<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
>
> Wow - There are a few Ubuntu users left. Will wonders ever cease?<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

Try 10 million and growing. Oh, and the way we know how many is through
the updates that are downloaded and net stats.

Alias

 

On Thu, 16 Jul 2009 07:47:12 +0100, "Gordon" <gordonbparker@yahoo.com>
wrote:
<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
>So much so that many people consider AOL (the program) to be a virus.... <!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

He also favors Mcafee and Norton, two programs with similar
characteristics.

 

"+Bob+" <nomailplease@example.com> wrote in message
newsuku55hr25q9clt8josvin8ttjujmg394s@4ax.com...<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
> On Thu, 16 Jul 2009 07:47:12 +0100, "Gordon" <gordonbparker@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
><!--coloro:green--><span style="color:green <!--/coloro-->
>>So much so that many people consider AOL (the program) to be a virus....<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
>
> He also favors Mcafee and Norton, two programs with similar
> characteristics.<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

Go back to sleep, troll, you're not paying attention. I've never liked
Norton. Their products have caused products on every system I've seen them
installed on.
Recent versions of McAfee have issues with uninstalling through group policy
but we've been able to work around them. Good products should rarely need
to be uninstalled so if the worst you can say about it is that it's a pain
to uninstall I can live with that.

 

On Thu, 16 Jul 2009 13:23:54 -0400, "Eric" <someone@idontwantspam.com>
wrote:
<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
>Recent versions of McAfee have issues with uninstalling through group policy
>but we've been able to work around them. Good products should rarely need
>to be uninstalled so if the worst you can say about it is that it's a pain
>to uninstall I can live with that. <!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

It's also a resource hog, but you're too lazy to google it.

Let's see: resource hog, can't be uninstalled without hacking... yep,
it's a virus.

 

"+Bob+" <nomailplease@example.com> wrote in message
news:4n1v559lj4bp7r3vlfktupmiu4t8fbkvve@4ax.com...<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
> On Thu, 16 Jul 2009 13:23:54 -0400, "Eric" <someone@idontwantspam.com>
> wrote:
><!--coloro:green--><span style="color:green <!--/coloro-->
>>Recent versions of McAfee have issues with uninstalling through group
>>policy
>>but we've been able to work around them. Good products should rarely need
>>to be uninstalled so if the worst you can say about it is that it's a pain
>>to uninstall I can live with that.<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
>
> It's also a resource hog, but you're too lazy to google it.
>
> Let's see: resource hog, can't be uninstalled without hacking... yep,
> it's a virus.<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

Sounds like you're too lazy to Google it, since you won't explain yourself
and you're the one calling it a resource hog. I'm the one actually running
it and I can't see it using hardly any resources.

Every program is a virus if it may require some extra work to uninstall?
Actually, McAfee uninstalls just fine if you manually install it on one
machine and you're removing it from that machine using normal add/remove
processes. The issues started with recent versions are only related to
automatically installing and removing it through group policy. Making an AV
program tricky to uninstall could also be a good thing, unless you want
viruses to be able to remove your AV program. The Buicks I've seen have
been a hassle to work on, taking me a half hour just to change a tail light,
but that's really handy if you park it in a dangerous city where criminals
like to disassemble cars and walk off with them piece by piece.

 

On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 08:27:31 -0400, "Eric" <someone@idontwantspam.com>
wrote:
<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
>Sounds like you're too lazy to Google it, since you won't explain yourself
>and you're the one calling it a resource hog. I'm the one actually running
>it and I can't see it using hardly any resources.
><!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

Ur really are a nitwit. Run a freaking google inquiry. There are
15,000 people who say it's a "resource hog" (that exact phrase, there
are many others that describe its performance in slightly different
terms). Ask anyone around here - they'll tell you it's a resource hog.
Check any professional comparisons - they'll tell you it's a resource
hog.
<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
>Every program is a virus if it may require some extra work to uninstall?
>Actually, McAfee uninstalls just fine if you manually install it on one
>machine and you're removing it from that machine using normal add/remove
>processes. The issues started with recent versions are only related to
>automatically installing and removing it through group policy. Making an AV
>program tricky to uninstall could also be a good thing, unless you want
>viruses to be able to remove your AV program. The Buicks I've seen have
>been a hassle to work on, taking me a half hour just to change a tail light,
>but that's really handy if you park it in a dangerous city where criminals
>like to disassemble cars and walk off with them piece by piece. <!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

Too laughable to comment on.

 

Alias wrote:<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
> Eric wrote:<!--coloro:green--><span style="color:green <!--/coloro-->
>> "Alias" <iamaliasTAK3THIS@OUTOFHEREgmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:h3mq3o$6fd$2@news.eternal-september.org...<!--coloro:darkred--><span style="color:darkred <!--/coloro-->
>>> Bill Yanaire wrote:
>>>> Alias wrote:
>>>>> Eric wrote:
>>>>>> Obviously you know nothing about anything, since anyone who knows
>>>>>> anything about anything will tell you if it isn't broken don't fix
>>>>>> it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> McAfee as far as I'm aware is still one of the best products. I
>>>>>> have yet to see anyone get a virus while running it so I don't
>>>>>> care which test you're whining that it fails. Every AV program
>>>>>> fails someone's test.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have no problems with AOL. They were one of the first companies
>>>>>> to offer email, so many people who have used PCs for more than a
>>>>>> decade just stuck with them. I heard someone say gmail is
>>>>>> simpler, but what could be simpler? AOL has a desktop program and
>>>>>> webmail. If I run the desktop program it automatically signs in
>>>>>> and with a click I can see my InBox. I read my mail and it moves
>>>>>> it to old mail which eventually gets deleted. With the click of a
>>>>>> button I can tell it not to delete for the few messages I want to
>>>>>> stay in the InBox, or I can click or drag to move it to a save
>>>>>> folder. I can save mail on my PC or on their server. In addition
>>>>>> they also offer news, instant messaging, and chat rooms. Now that
>>>>>> all of AOL is free (unless you need their dialup connection), I
>>>>>> can't find any reason not to use it other than some snob geeks
>>>>>> saying it's "outdated" and we should all update to the gmail fad.
>>>>>> Get back in your hole, troll.
>>>>> Oh dear, there really is an AOL user left. Will wonders ever cease?
>>>>>
>>>>> Alias
>>>> Wow - There are a few Ubuntu users left. Will wonders ever cease?
>>> Try 10 million and growing. Oh, and the way we know how many is
>>> through the updates that are downloaded and net stats.
>>>
>>> Alias<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
>>
>> I was going to try Ubuntu but boy it must be a headache of a program
>> if your 5 users have to download 2 million updates each.
>><!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
>
> With your "logic", it's no wonder you use AOL.
>
> Alias<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

With your brain (or lack of one), it's no wonder you use Ubuntu

 

Alias wrote:<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
> Bill Yanaire wrote:<!--coloro:green--><span style="color:green <!--/coloro-->
>> Alias wrote:<!--coloro:darkred--><span style="color:darkred <!--/coloro-->
>>> Eric wrote:
>>>> I don't know or care if McAfee is a resource "hog" because I haven't
>>>> seen it cause any problems. I ran McAfee software on my old PC, a 1
>>>> GHz Athlon with 512 MB RAM running Windows ME, with no noticeable
>>>> resource issues. We run McAfee software at work on everything down
>>>> to a Pentium III 800 MHz with 256 MB RAM running Windows XP Pro,
>>>> with no noticeable resource issues.
>>>>
>>>> Avg may be small but I don't know about good. People who know very
>>>> little about computers want to try it apparently because it comes up
>>>> in a Google search for "free antivirus", but it apparently has
>>>> issues. I've seen it cause major conflicts with AOL for one. While
>>>> you may be an ignorant kid who says "don't use AOL" as your
>>>> solution, you would apparently have no experience working with
>>>> users. The typical user doesn't care to switch to gmail just
>>>> because it's the latest fad. Older users especially prefer to avoid
>>>> change.
>>>>
>>>> I don't care if you have to pay for McAfee. I already said it's
>>>> free. Comcast provides it to all of their internet subscribers.
>>>
>>> McAfee is one of the worst in detecting malware. I bet if you install
>>> Avast on your McAfee computers, it will find viruses that McAfee let
>>> slide. That said, if you use Linux, you needn't bother about what
>>> anti virus program you should use.
>>>
>>> Alias
>>>><!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
>>
>> What you fail to understand is if the OP uses Linux, he won't be able
>> to run his programs.<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
>
> "His" programs? And, pray tell, what programs did the OP write?<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

So if someone says where is your TV, did you build the TV or did you
purchase the TV?

No wonder why you are so stupid... You use Ubuntu

<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
> <!--coloro:green--><span style="color:green <!--/coloro-->
>> That means his Linux system will just be sitting there and he will
>> get nothing done. That makes Linux worth exactly what you pay for
>> it: NOTHING.<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
>
> Lying again, eh?
>
> Alias<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->