Keep your computer clean!

I do coop at a computer repair shope (eh) and 9 out 10 computers comming in are for Adware, spyware, or virus infections or the "my computer is running slow" symptom. I figured if its happening so much I might want to post something about it, so I can share with you guys what I use, and you guys can share what you use.

I use the following:

• AVG - free Virus scanner from Grisoft
• Ad-Aware SE
• Registry Mechanic
• Disk Keeper

I also delete files from the following folders:

C:/Windows/Prefetch
C:/Windows/Temp
C:/Documents and Settings/(username)/Local Settings/Temporary Internet Files
C:/Documents and Settings/(username)/Local Settings/Application Data
C:/Documents and Settings/(username)/My Recent Documents
C:/Documents and Settings/(username)/Application Data
C:/Documents and Settings/(username)/Local Settings/Temp
C:/Documents and Settings/(username)/Cookies

if you run spybot, AVG and regclean weekly, you will be fine..

scandisk is overlooked by many and its partner defrag, because it takes so long most times never gets used..

do these 5 actions, and you will never have problems..

i dislike adaware, it messed up my machine once.. perhaps they addressed this issue, but i am not chancing it again..

I use Ad-Aware and PC-Cillin which came with my motherboard. I also
defrag often - once every few days - which only takes a few minutes of
my time (normally do it if I'm going to the toilet, or cooking, or
something). Other than that, I basically leave it to its own devices :smile:

I use AdAware and defrag occasionally, though not on this computer because it would literally take days, it got 10% overnight. Luckily this computer isn't mine. The disk cleanup's always good to run before you run defrag too, somehow it's freed up hundreds of MBs at a time for me.

This one's also got Norton Internet Security and Norton AntiVirus, it keeps 'er relatively clean, and the Internet Security tells me whenever some spyware tries to connect to an IP or something like that so I can just block it.

Hee hee. Spyware :biggrin:

What I'm running right now?
[*] GNOME Desktop 2.6
[*] RhythmBox
[*] Mozilla Firefox - If you're using IE, I strongly recommend switching to Firefox. IE's insecure, slow, and a conduit for malware. Actually, I better repeat that.
IF YOU ARE USING INTERNET EXPLORER, YOU ARE AT SEVERE RISK OF SPYWARE AND ADWARE INFECTION. USE AN ALTERNATIVE BROWSER.

Personally I dont like Firefox. There are a few sites it doesnt support for me. www.zone.com and www.pccyber.ca for example.

I have yet to run a disk cleanup on my computer, too lazy

Disk Keeper is a very nice utility that does a better job of defraging your hard drive. And while its defraging, you can still use your computer. Just dont be playing UT2K4 because it will lag like a biotch :biggrin:

With windows XP's defragger you can continue using the computer too, but as you said, you shouldn't try anything too demanding.

regclean is no longer updated so if anyone needs it, i have the laster version "4.3" in my briefcase.. gimme a holler.

The all purpose virus and trojan hunter (and cleaner) - especially useful for Safe Mode clean ups -

McAfee Stinger - http://vil.nai.com/vil/stinger/

Other than that, HiJack This! Good anti spyware hunter (have to know
what reg keys etc you are looking for - lot of end user support for
that though, dozens of forums cover it)

HiJack This - http://www.hijack-this.net/

• CrapCleaner

• Spybot

• Ad-Aware

• Stinger

• TuneXP

• Easycleaner (registry)

• jv16 Powertools (registry)

:smile:

• AVG 6.0

• Ad-aware SE

• JV16 Power Tools

-FreeRAM XP Pro 1.4 (I use this one when I'm using two or three very demanding programs in the same time)

I've got adaware and Fsecure :biggrin:

DesPlesda said:
Mozilla Firefox - If you're using IE, I strongly recommend switching to Firefox. IE's insecure, slow, and a conduit for malware. Actually, I better repeat that.

IF YOU ARE USING INTERNET EXPLORER, YOU ARE AT SEVERE RISK OF SPYWARE AND ADWARE INFECTION. USE AN ALTERNATIVE BROWSER.

There isn't much point (right now) with XP Service Pack 2 out!

There are a few sites it doesnt support for me

There is no such thing as a an unsupported website, if you conceed that a website should always be written in W3C-valid html. It isn't the fault of firefox if the authors of those website's can't create valid html.

Next time, please rephrase your reasoning to "I don't use firefox, because I like sites that don't use valid html" :smile:

scary_jeff said:
There is no such thing as a an unsupported website, if you conceed that a website should always be written in W3C-valid html. It isn't the fault of firefox if the authors of those website's can't create valid html.

Next time, please rephrase your reasoning to "I don't use firefox, because I like sites that don't use valid html" :smile:

Jeff, is it your view that Firefox is a perfectly W3C compliant browser, and that all others aren't? We're kicking a dead horse here, but IE is so much easier to position elements and get things how you want them to look than Firefox! (e.g. I have to use some margin:0 auto CSS nonsense in Firefox to centralise a DIV element)

I use:

*AntiVir

*ZoneAlarm

*Spybot Search & Destroy

*Ad-Aware

I had some performance issues so I did a small clean up. I found only 5 viruses and I eradicated them quickly. Remember to use Firewall!

you know, it says or said clearly, that adaware and spybot clash with each other.. if they have not addressed this clash, it might explain why so many of you have editor not working errors

My versions of spybot and Adaware dont seem to interfere, and both are new. So it's probably fixed.

Security stuff I use:
Norton antivirus 2002
Norton Internet security 2002 (these two came free with my motherboard)
SpyBot S&D
Adaware
Regclean
Hijack This!

I've had only two major infections in recent times. One keylogger trojan which was installed because of stupidity between the keyboard and the chair. And a virus from the JPEG buffer overflow vulnerability. Luckily, NIS detected both activities going on, and NAV and adaware cleaned them out.

If anyone wants to continue the Linux-windows thing, I also use Fedora Core 1 quite regularly for class assignments and coding and the like. I've used quite a few Linux distros over the last few months and they are most definitely more stable than windows on the same hardware. They are also less easy to use, and hardware support is lacking. Same old, same old, same old.

fraggard said:
My versions of spybot and Adaware dont seem to interfere, and both are new. So it's probably fixed.

thats great.. removes one more mystery about programs that suddenly stop operating.

that message i saw, was a few years ago, stands to reason they addressed it by now..

so, has anyone ever tested the two to see if one finds something the other missed? i used to use adaware myself, i am not against doing so again.. i would rather use the better of the two however.

Orpheus said:
so, has anyone ever tested the two to see if one finds something the other missed? i used to use adaware myself, i am not against doing so again.. i would rather use the better of the two however.

Yes. Spybot never caught the keylogger my PC was infected with while adaware did. It was called h@tkeysh@@k.dll or something. BUT spybot has a lot of cool features like the Winsock LSPs and the BHO detector thingy. IMO, they are both needed.

scary_jeff said:
There is no such thing as a an unsupported website, if you
conceed that a website should always be written in W3C-valid html. It
isn't the fault of firefox if the authors of those website's can't
create valid html.

Next time, please rephrase your reasoning to "I don't use firefox, because I like sites that don't use valid html" :smile:

Jeff, is it your view that Firefox is a perfectly W3C compliant
browser, and that all others aren't? We're kicking a dead horse here,
but IE is so much easier to position elements and get things how you
want them to look than Firefox! (e.g. I have to use some margin:0 auto
CSS nonsense in Firefox to centralise a DIV element)

Leperous has got a point here. Although Firefox is my favorite browser,
I spend more time coding a site that works perfect in it. Sure, my HTML
is valid, then ... but utterly long and kinda difficult.

Also, an unknown program that has helped me out dozens of times:

http://www.analogx.com/contents/download/system/sdefend.htm

AnalogX Script Defender - All
it does is intercepting calls to execute VBS or other scripts that may
contain malicious code. It doesn't have to be running, all it does is
redirecting all the scripts to the AnalogX-program. When a program
tries to execute such a script, you will recieve a warning. (so you can
still choose wether to run the script or not)

This came in very handy when - for some reason - a stupid mail tried to run a VBS script to do some nasty stuff.

And it doesn't block other programs. Every time it warned me, it was correct. :smile:

Like I said ... it doesn't have to sit around, the download's only
222kb, and configuring it is a piece of cake. (run it once, choose
"install intercepts", and forget about it :razz: )

Leperous said:
Jeff, is it your view that Firefox is a perfectly W3C compliant browser, and that all others aren't? We're kicking a dead horse here, but IE is so much easier to position elements and get things how you want them to look than Firefox! (e.g. I have to use some margin:0 auto CSS nonsense in Firefox to centralise a DIV element)

Just use a center tag in the body ...

The issues I have with IE on the development front are when I make something, I'm using Mozilla when I make it. When I'm done, I'll open it up in IE and find it looks like it's been beaten with an ugly stick.

There are reasons why things are done a certain way in more standardized browsers then lesser standardized browsers.
I doubt many people would have a problem with IE on this front if it at least supported all the W3C standards, like it should.
Not to mention, a lot of people don't know the difference between IE standards and W3C. MS seems to have thrown in a bunch of eye candy to distract you from other problems (Transitional effects, colorized scroll bars, etc).

you know, i am an entry level web page designer, but the first rule of any HTML book i have states, make your pages compatible with most/all browsers.

if your browser, or any browser has a flaw, a KNOWN flaw and you the designer fail to address it, YOU are at fault.. at least from USER perspective..

all programs have issues, we the users have only two options, deal with them or bitch like a woman.. i think, addressing the known flaws are preferable to bitching.

to clarify bitching, it is the endless rant of a topic you have absolutely no power to change.. to complain is normal, to bitch is unacceptable.

IE has issues, address them.. do what ANY competent web page designer would, which is to work within the limitations of the product your pages will be displayed upon.. if your pages look like s**t in IE, you obviously desired for them to be so..

/rant

atm I use only ZoneAlarm to protect myself, which has proven to be not
enough. When you do an online virusscan and discover that your computer
have hundreds of viruses, then you know something's wrong :biggrin:

ZoneAlarm is a little annoying, as it seems to repeat questions over
and over again. I allow a program and tick the "Don't ask again"
button, then, next time I start that program ZoneAlarm asks again.
That's a little annoying.

Orph, that isn't true.

Most times you CAN'T make a page for all browsers usually to the fault of IE.

If you try to use certain CSS styles, which are perfectly acceptable, they simply aren't supported in IE. An example is the right, top, and bottom addition to margin, padding, etc. If you use frames/iframes those are very handy. I can honestly say the only positive thing Microsoft has given the devlopment community is iframes.

What I've said in regards to IE is from my experiences with using it when developing web content. I've got to tell you, when I develop something that is exactly how I want it, using the INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS FOR WEB DEVELOPMENT and it works in everything but IE, it f**king pisses me off.

If you make a page that works wonderfully in IE that has high end content (uses effects of any kind), chances are it will work in IE only. Yet, those developers never get scorned for developing that way.

I'm not saying other browsers are bug free, bug free programs don't exist. But, f**king recognize when something sucks ass!

No offense, but, until you have a real grasp of what you're talking about, be quiet.

Crono said:
Orph, that isn't true.

No offense, but, until you have a real grasp of what you're talking about, be quiet.

ok.. as i said, entry level..

Spybot

Adaware SE

Spysweeper

I also delete my cookies atleast once a month and delete my history weekly. I also logout out of any programs like Steam that leaves my internet open.

Spartan 34 said:
Spybot

Adaware SE

Spysweeper

I also delete my cookies atleast once a month and delete my history weekly. I also logout out of any programs like Steam that leaves my internet open.

Delete history weekly? What, you dont want your parents to see all the porn sites you visit? :biggrin:

Whether it's easier or not is totally irrelevant. If everybody went round breaking standards and creating their own methods, because their way was 'easier', the whole world would be a big mess.

If you don't like how you have to write it to get a div to show as you intend in FireFox, don't blame firefox, blame the people who set these suposedly bad standards. I'm sorry, but there is no way to look at it where it is firefox that is at fault.

Im by far not the expert, especially when it comes to the internet. I know limited HTML and basic Java and Delphi. But the way I see it, Firefox, Internet Explorer, and all the other web browsers are supposed to show us the web pages we want to see. So if (for example) Firefox cant display www.zone.com and www.pccyber.ca I dont blame the site creators. The job of a website admin is to put content onto his/her site in an organised manner that will bring hits to the site. Whereas the job of a webbrowser, like Firefox, is to display these pages.

Thats how I see things. So in my case, I put the finger on Firefox. Besides, I dont like it anyways :rolleyes:

Spartan 34 said:
Spybot

Adaware SE

Spysweeper

I also delete my cookies atleast once a month and delete my history
weekly. I also logout out of any programs like Steam that leaves my
internet open.

Delete history weekly? What, you dont want your parents to see all the porn sites you visit? :biggrin:

Nah, it just speeds up browsing. I delete my history every day :smile:

At WC: So you're stating that every webdesigner can use whatever tags
and commands they can, as long as the website is organised. That would
be impossible for any browser to display every page on the net
correctly, since thousands of people are writing HTML in different
ways.

Isn't that what the WC3 standard is all for ? Uniformisation ?

There is still no way to look at it where firefox is at fault, because your way is flawed. Let's test out your logic.

Let's say I'm a website admin. I use my own web browser that I wrote because I wanted to be clever. It's called scaryBrowser. Now, I design my wonderful website with all kinds of games and fun free stuff that everybody wants; It's all nicely organised, easy to navigate, the lot. My scaryBrowser shows it all perfectly, because it knows all the tags and syntax that I just made up out of nowhere.

You are saying you wouldn't care if you came along using IE, and the page didn't work at all? Because it's not the job of the webmaster to make that happen?

Can I now ask you, WC, if you would be happy with this situation, since it meets your requirements for what a webmaster should do?

Maybe I just dont get it then. But as far as I know, webpages are written in HTML. Now I cant really see how someone can make a page on HTML and have it written in such a way that only IE can view it?

I mean, I havent seen a webpage that Firefox can display that IE cant. But I have seen the opposite (as I keep stating). And they arent websites made by 16 year old kids fresh from programming class. Especially www.zone.com since thats a Microsoft website.

But like I said, perhaps I just dont understand.

I've done some website design a few years back. And its always following the basics:

[HTML]
[BODY]

bla bla bla

[/BODY]
[/HTML]

I mean, IE can view that, so if Firefox cant, what the point in using it? I just dont quite see how someone can poorly make a website, code wise.

Wild Card said:
I just dont quite see how someone can poorly make a website, code wise.

Thats why i've gotta love dreamweaver :biggrin:

That's not the point WC. I think what scary_jeff (and the rest of the firefox bandwagon :wink: ) is trying to say is that IE renders pages the wrong way. It's not that "it doesnt work". It's just that some things which should work one way, don't.

For example, though this is not strictly HTML, IE doesn't like CSS2 tables. It'll always get the pixel alignment values wrong. That said, Firefox cant render coloured scrollbars. Both are totally cosmetic though. Simple basic HTML of the sort you've given will work perfectly on both browsers.

But don't you think that zone.com is deliberately designed to break ffox? I mean, it's an MSN page. And IE's biggest competitor right now is firefox. So there's a very good reason for zone.com to deliberately code a popular site such that a competing browser can't use it.

And yes Crono, IMO coloured scrollbars are VERY useful to get your page looking "just right".

microsof have purposely made their sites not work in other browsers
before, they had made www.microsoft.com display incorectly in Opera
browser but enough people complained so they had to fix it.

Can you answer my question, WC? Would you think I was doing OK if I had done what was described in my previous post?

Firefox
Spybot
Kerio firewall
AVG antivirus

And hey lep, how do the stats for snarkpit break down in terms of browsers?

microsof have purposely made their sites not work in other browsers
before, they had made www.microsoft.com display incorectly in Opera
browser but enough people complained so they had to fix it.

Just like "XFree86" would show no results in MSN search. Yet, you can find stuff for "XFree85" and "XFree87" ... They changed it, but still.

Jeff's points are absolutly 100% correct <- not opinion.

WC, The reason why there are pages that only IE can show is because the developers are developed using IE ONLY standards. That "ScaryBrowser" Jeff mentioned is basically IE to some minor extent.

Force, yes! That's exactly why there's a standard! :smile:

Maze, I have't checked, but I doubt SP works well in Konquer

Note: Konquer sucks.

Curses Crono, you were meant to wait for WC to answer with 'no' before revealing that scaryBrowser would have done the exact thing that IE has :smile:

FLOG,FLOG,FLOG,FLOG....

i think we should REALLY consider adding the browser war debate to the list that the r_speed debate is on, so we can stop bitching about it..

There's nothing wrong with a good debate as long as it doesn't get personal.

mazemaster said:
There's nothing wrong with a good debate as long as it doesn't get personal.

true..

it has always been my experience that a "good" debate is over issues one can control, and "bad" debates are over issues above our control.

but think of this, we each have control over the r_speeds of our maps, and that debate always ended poorly.. we have no control at all over the browsers, how do you think this debate will end??

/me shuts up now.

This debate is quite interesting, so if no one really doesn't want to, we can keep it going for a while.

@ WC

About the Head-Body-structure of HTML: ok, that's true, but that's not
where IE and Firefox have their differences. IE renders pages the wrong
way, as said, but it's about smaller, less-used code details, like CSS2.

Forceflow said:
This debate is quite interesting, so if no one really doesn't want to, we can keep it going for a while.

@ WC

About the Head-Body-structure of HTML: ok, that's true, but that's not where IE and Firefox have their differences. IE renders pages the wrong way, as said, but it's about smaller, less-used code details, like CSS2.

As I said, :biggrin: My internet/web pages knowledge is very limited. Im a hardware guy :razz:

Sorry Crono (and the rest), chalk one up for the uniformed dumb guy getting owned again :biggrin:

... Harware guy eh?

anyway ...

Crono said:
... Hardware guy eh?

anyway ...

entry level counts, or at least it should..

personally, i think the guy whom asks is the lesser fool than one who assumes, and nick asks for advice on hardware quite often :smile:

Orpheus said:

Crono said:
... Hardware guy eh?

anyway ...

entry level counts, or at least it should..

personally, i think the guy whom asks is the lesser fool than one who assumes, and nick asks for advice on hardware quite often :smile:

I do know a lot more about hardware than anything else. But when I am unsure. I ask. Because its better than frying a thousand dollar system.

Speaking of which, I just got a new Thermaltake Butterfly 480Watt PSU and 4 more Vantec Stealth 80mm case fans. Now I just need to identify my last noise source (probably CPU) and eliminate it.

/me adds fuel

http://www.kb.cert.org/vuls/id/842160
Looks like those iframes might not be all that good after all :smile: