Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.sys.mac.system > #23405 > unrolled thread

Does the Flashback trojan affect Chrome? Lion?

Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.mac.system

Contents

  Does the Flashback trojan affect Chrome?  Lion? Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2012-04-07 09:43 -0400
    Re: Does the Flashback trojan affect Chrome?  Lion? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2012-04-07 08:30 -0700
      Re: Does the Flashback trojan affect Chrome?  Lion? Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2012-04-07 11:46 -0400
        Re: Does the Flashback trojan affect Chrome?  Lion? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2012-04-07 09:04 -0700
          Re: Does the Flashback trojan affect Chrome?  Lion? Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2012-04-07 13:59 -0400
            Re: Does the Flashback trojan affect Chrome?  Lion? *Hemidactylus* <ecphoric@hotmail.com> - 2012-04-07 18:43 -0400
              Re: Does the Flashback trojan affect Chrome?  Lion? Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> - 2012-04-07 23:01 -0400
                Re: Does the Flashback trojan affect Chrome?  Lion? *Hemidactylus* <ecphoric@hotmail.com> - 2012-04-07 23:26 -0400
                  Re: Does the Flashback trojan affect Chrome?  Lion? Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> - 2012-04-08 14:14 -0400
                Re: Does the Flashback trojan affect Chrome?  Lion? Paul Sture <paul@sture.ch> - 2012-04-08 14:12 +0200
                Re: Does the Flashback trojan affect Chrome?  Lion? Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2012-04-09 16:36 -0400
      Re: Does the Flashback trojan affect Chrome?  Lion? Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> - 2012-04-07 12:05 -0400
        Re: Does the Flashback trojan affect Chrome?  Lion? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2012-04-07 09:07 -0700
          Re: Does the Flashback trojan affect Chrome?  Lion? Leonard Blaisdell <leoblaisdell@sbcglobal.net> - 2012-04-07 22:32 -0700
            Re: Does the Flashback trojan affect Chrome?  Lion? dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) - 2012-04-08 23:01 +1200
    Re: Does the Flashback trojan affect Chrome?  Lion? Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2012-04-07 08:59 -0700
      Re: Does the Flashback trojan affect Chrome?  Lion? Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2012-04-07 13:56 -0400
        Re: Does the Flashback trojan affect Chrome?  Lion? Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2012-04-07 11:18 -0700
          Re: Does the Flashback trojan affect Chrome?  Lion? dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) - 2012-04-08 10:17 +1200
            Re: Does the Flashback trojan affect Chrome?  Lion? Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> - 2012-04-07 19:53 -0400
              Re: Does the Flashback trojan affect Chrome?  Lion? Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> - 2012-04-07 23:04 -0400
                Re: Does the Flashback trojan affect Chrome?  Lion? Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> - 2012-04-07 23:40 -0400
                  Re: Does the Flashback trojan affect Chrome?  Lion? dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) - 2012-04-08 16:32 +1200
                  Re: Does the Flashback trojan affect Chrome?  Lion? Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> - 2012-04-08 14:18 -0400
                    Re: Does the Flashback trojan affect Chrome?  Lion? Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> - 2012-04-08 17:40 -0400
                      Re: Does the Flashback trojan affect Chrome?  Lion? Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> - 2012-04-08 19:56 -0400
                        Re: Does the Flashback trojan affect Chrome?  Lion? Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> - 2012-04-08 22:36 -0400
                          Re: Does the Flashback trojan affect Chrome?  Lion? Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> - 2012-04-09 00:32 -0400
                        Re: Does the Flashback trojan affect Chrome?  Lion? Paul Sture <paul@sture.ch> - 2012-04-09 09:21 +0200
                        Re: Does the Flashback trojan affect Chrome?  Lion? Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2012-04-09 11:37 -0400
                          Re: Does the Flashback trojan affect Chrome?  Lion? Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> - 2012-04-09 14:48 -0400
                            Re: Does the Flashback trojan affect Chrome?  Lion? Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2012-04-09 15:33 -0400
                              Re: Does the Flashback trojan affect Chrome?  Lion? Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> - 2012-04-09 21:41 -0400
                                Re: Does the Flashback trojan affect Chrome?  Lion? Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2012-04-10 17:36 -0400
                                  Re: Does the Flashback trojan affect Chrome?  Lion? Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> - 2012-04-10 23:15 -0400
                              Re: Does the Flashback trojan affect Chrome?  Lion? Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> - 2012-04-09 21:42 -0400
                            Re: Does the Flashback trojan affect Chrome?  Lion? Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> - 2012-04-09 21:37 -0400
                              Re: Does the Flashback trojan affect Chrome?  Lion? Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2012-04-10 17:35 -0400
                                Re: Does the Flashback trojan affect Chrome?  Lion? Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> - 2012-04-10 23:19 -0400
                                  Re: Does the Flashback trojan affect Chrome?  Lion? Paul Sture <paul@sture.ch> - 2012-04-11 10:40 +0200
                              Re: Does the Flashback trojan affect Chrome?  Lion? Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2012-04-10 17:36 -0400
          Re: Does the Flashback trojan affect Chrome?  Lion? Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2012-04-08 09:07 -0400
    Re: Does the Flashback trojan affect Chrome?  Lion? *Hemidactylus* <ecphoric@hotmail.com> - 2012-04-07 19:05 -0400
      Re: Does the Flashback trojan affect Chrome?  Lion? Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2012-04-08 00:24 +0100
      Re: Does the Flashback trojan affect Chrome?  Lion? dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) - 2012-04-08 16:32 +1200
    Re: Does the Flashback trojan affect Chrome?  Lion? Rob Friefeld <someone@verizon.net> - 2012-04-08 10:59 -0700
      Re: Does the Flashback trojan affect Chrome?  Lion? Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2012-04-09 16:26 -0400

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

#23459

On 04-07-2012 19:53, Barry Margolin wrote:
>   dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) wrote:
>
>> In the case of Firefox, it also makes the mistake of assuming where
>> Firefox was installed, which is not a good idea as Firefox is installed
>> using drag-and-drop, so the user could have put it in a non-standard
>> place. (Safari is installed via a package and shouldn't be moved.)
>
> If you know enough to install it in an unusual place, you shouldn't have
> too much trouble modifying the command to access that place.

Quote: "installed using drag-and-drop"

You don't have to know ANYTHING other than what a mouse looks like.

-- 
Wes Groleau

   Pat's Polemics
   http://Ideas.Lang-Learn.us/barrett

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#23462

In article <jlqv82$3kr$2@dont-email.me>,
 Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> wrote:

> On 04-07-2012 19:53, Barry Margolin wrote:
> >   dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) wrote:
> >
> >> In the case of Firefox, it also makes the mistake of assuming where
> >> Firefox was installed, which is not a good idea as Firefox is installed
> >> using drag-and-drop, so the user could have put it in a non-standard
> >> place. (Safari is installed via a package and shouldn't be moved.)
> >
> > If you know enough to install it in an unusual place, you shouldn't have
> > too much trouble modifying the command to access that place.
> 
> Quote: "installed using drag-and-drop"
> 
> You don't have to know ANYTHING other than what a mouse looks like.

True.  But why would someone who doesn't know anything do anything other 
than the "normal" thing?  Doesn't FF's disk image have the common:

=> Applications

icon, which essentially tells the user to drag the app into the 
Applications folder to install it?  In general, someone who doesn't 
follow these directions presumably has a reason, and that suggests they 
know what they're doing.

-- 
Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#23463

Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> wrote:

> In article <jlqv82$3kr$2@dont-email.me>,
>  Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> wrote:
> 
> > On 04-07-2012 19:53, Barry Margolin wrote:
> > >   dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) wrote:
> > >
> > >> In the case of Firefox, it also makes the mistake of assuming where
> > >> Firefox was installed, which is not a good idea as Firefox is installed
> > >> using drag-and-drop, so the user could have put it in a non-standard
> > >> place. (Safari is installed via a package and shouldn't be moved.)
> > >
> > > If you know enough to install it in an unusual place, you shouldn't have
> > > too much trouble modifying the command to access that place.
> > 
> > Quote: "installed using drag-and-drop"
> > 
> > You don't have to know ANYTHING other than what a mouse looks like.
> 
> True.  But why would someone who doesn't know anything do anything other
> than the "normal" thing?  Doesn't FF's disk image have the common:
> 
> => Applications
>
> icon, which essentially tells the user to drag the app into the 
> Applications folder to install it? 

Older ones don't, and a fair number of Mac users of my experience don't
understand what that icon means, despite me telling them repeatedly.

> In general, someone who doesn't follow these directions presumably has a
> reason, and that suggests they know what they're doing.

Or they don't know what they are doing.

I've lost count of the number of times I've seen a copy of Firefox.app
in an unusual place on someone else's computer.

Most of the time, it was still on the disk image, which would be safer
because it is read-only.

I've also seen it on the desktop, or in stranger places.

-- 
David Empson
dempson@actrix.gen.nz

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#23500

On 04-07-2012 23:40, Barry Margolin wrote:
> Applications folder to install it?  In general, someone who doesn't
> follow these directions presumably has a reason, and that suggests they
> know what they're doing.

That is an unwarranted assumption.  Lots of people have "reasons" for 
doing things they don't understand.  And lots of people not only don't 
know what they're doing but don't understand instructions either.

And lots of people don't follow instructions for no reason.

-- 
Wes Groleau

   Pat's Polemics
   http://Ideas.Lang-Learn.us/barrett

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#23511

In article <jlskoq$g8r$3@dont-email.me>,
 Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> wrote:

> On 04-07-2012 23:40, Barry Margolin wrote:
> > Applications folder to install it?  In general, someone who doesn't
> > follow these directions presumably has a reason, and that suggests they
> > know what they're doing.
> 
> That is an unwarranted assumption.  Lots of people have "reasons" for 
> doing things they don't understand.  And lots of people not only don't 
> know what they're doing but don't understand instructions either.
> 
> And lots of people don't follow instructions for no reason.

OK, I give.

But if people don't follow the cookbook for installing, it's going to be 
hard to give them cookbook steps for solving problems.  The simple 
solutions tend to assume standard configurations, just to avoid 
confusing the users even more than they probably are already.

You could put two sets of directions up, one labeled "If you installed 
Firefox in the normal Applications folder".  But the kind of people who 
need this hand-holding are likely to say "How the F do I know?".

I handle all this kind of stuff remotely for my mother.  She's still 
scared to click on the "Install" button when Software Update pops up 
automatically, she waits for me to do it for her.

My general suggestion to users who don't already have someone like me 
managing their system for them is that they should find a teenager who 
knows their way around the computer and ask them to help.

-- 
Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#23519

On 04-08-2012 17:40, Barry Margolin wrote:
> But if people don't follow the cookbook for installing, it's going to be
> hard to give them cookbook steps for solving problems.  The simple

True.  As a technical writer, more than once I had to explain to someone,
"It doesn't matter how good your text is; if you put a bad example next 
to it, that's what people will follow."

> My general suggestion to users who don't already have someone like me
> managing their system for them is that they should find a teenager who
> knows their way around the computer and ask them to help.

No way.  All the teenagers who have "helped" my parents have installed
"helpful" stuff that just makes things worse.  Since they didn't get a
Mac when I advised it, two of the things they do need that none of the
teens did are defragmentation and malware protection.

Finally, someone gave them a Linux with Thunderbird and FireFox icons on 
the desktop and they can finally use the thing.  (And they don't know
it isn't Mac or Windows.)

-- 
Wes Groleau

   Pat's Polemics
   http://Ideas.Lang-Learn.us/barrett

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#23528

In article <jlt8ii$gj$1@dont-email.me>,
 Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> wrote:

> On 04-08-2012 17:40, Barry Margolin wrote:
> > But if people don't follow the cookbook for installing, it's going to be
> > hard to give them cookbook steps for solving problems.  The simple
> 
> True.  As a technical writer, more than once I had to explain to someone,
> "It doesn't matter how good your text is; if you put a bad example next 
> to it, that's what people will follow."
> 
> > My general suggestion to users who don't already have someone like me
> > managing their system for them is that they should find a teenager who
> > knows their way around the computer and ask them to help.
> 
> No way.  All the teenagers who have "helped" my parents have installed
> "helpful" stuff that just makes things worse.  Since they didn't get a
> Mac when I advised it, two of the things they do need that none of the
> teens did are defragmentation and malware protection.

Could your parents have done better by themselves?

-- 
Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#23529

On 04-08-2012 22:36, Barry Margolin wrote:
>   Wes Groleau<Groleau+news@FreeShell.org>  wrote:
>> No way.  All the teenagers who have "helped" my parents have installed
>> "helpful" stuff that just makes things worse.  Since they didn't get a
>> Mac when I advised it, two of the things they do need that none of the
>> teens did are defragmentation and malware protection.
>
> Could your parents have done better by themselves?

Could have bought the Mac I found for them, for half the cost of the
XP box that drove them nuts for a couple of years.

I'm not sure how long after I left home my mother gave up the 
non-electric typewriter on which she could type 66 WPM.

-- 
Wes Groleau

   Pat's Polemics
   http://Ideas.Lang-Learn.us/barrett

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#23537

On Sun, 08 Apr 2012 19:56:02 -0400, Wes Groleau wrote:

> On 04-08-2012 17:40, Barry Margolin wrote:
>> But if people don't follow the cookbook for installing, it's going to
>> be hard to give them cookbook steps for solving problems.  The simple
> 
> True.  As a technical writer, more than once I had to explain to
> someone, "It doesn't matter how good your text is; if you put a bad
> example next to it, that's what people will follow."
> 

Something I read last year supported that.  IIRC it was to do with using 
officially supported names like "example.org" in documentation examples. 
Put a real domain name in instead, and someone somewhere is bound to 
faithfully reproduce that on their system.

-- 
Paul Sture

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#23545

On 2012-04-08 19:56 , Wes Groleau wrote:

> teens did are defragmentation and malware protection.

Defrag? Puh-leaze.

Never used it after Windows 95.  As disks got larger defrag became more 
and more pointless. (Never mind diminishing returns - it was negative 
returns as the computer was out of service (or slow) during de-frag and 
it just added wear and tear to the drive).

As to AV there is ample freeware out there for PC's - and they have less 
impact on the system than Norton or McAfee.

-- 
"I was gratified to be able to answer promptly, and I did.
  I said I didn't know."
                           -Samuel Clemens.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#23568

In article <JPSdnao2itO3nx7SnZ2dnUVZ_qidnZ2d@giganews.com>,
 Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:

> On 2012-04-08 19:56 , Wes Groleau wrote:
> 
> > teens did are defragmentation and malware protection.
> 
> Defrag? Puh-leaze.
> 
> Never used it after Windows 95.  As disks got larger defrag became more 
> and more pointless. (Never mind diminishing returns - it was negative 
> returns as the computer was out of service (or slow) during de-frag and 
> it just added wear and tear to the drive).

I think that was his point: even though there's no reason to do it, it 
has become part of the culture, so the practice continued.  The fact 
that these teens defragged is an indication that they didn't know what 
they were doing.

-- 
Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#23569

On 2012-04-09 14:48 , Barry Margolin wrote:
> In article<JPSdnao2itO3nx7SnZ2dnUVZ_qidnZ2d@giganews.com>,
>   Alan Browne<alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca>  wrote:
>
>> On 2012-04-08 19:56 , Wes Groleau wrote:
>>
>>> teens did are defragmentation and malware protection.
>>
>> Defrag? Puh-leaze.
>>
>> Never used it after Windows 95.  As disks got larger defrag became more
>> and more pointless. (Never mind diminishing returns - it was negative
>> returns as the computer was out of service (or slow) during de-frag and
>> it just added wear and tear to the drive).
>
> I think that was his point: even though there's no reason to do it, it
> has become part of the culture, so the practice continued.  The fact
> that these teens defragged is an indication that they didn't know what
> they were doing.

He said "... two of the things they do need that none of the teens did 
are defragmentation and malware protection."

I don't know of anyone who defrags anymore.  A few years ago an IT guy 
asked me if I wanted him to defrag my desktop HD to help speed it up.  I 
looked at him in bemused wonder.  He said he knew it didn't really help 
but so many people ask him to do it for them that he just does it so 
they feel he's "doing something" for them to help speed up their 
machines.  I told him to stop defragging company machines as it was a 
resource waste.

It made me think of people who ask their doctors for antibiotics when 
they have a viral infection and the doctors who (used to) write it up... 
(you think they would have come up with a placebo antibiotic - extra 
expensive too...).

-- 
"I was gratified to be able to answer promptly, and I did.
  I said I didn't know."
                           -Samuel Clemens.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#23576

On 04-09-2012 15:33, Alan Browne wrote:
> I don't know of anyone who defrags anymore.  A few years ago an IT guy
> asked me if I wanted him to defrag my desktop HD to help speed it up.  I
> looked at him in bemused wonder.  He said he knew it didn't really help
> but so many people ask him to do it for them that he just does it so
> they feel he's "doing something" for them to help speed up their
> machines.  I told him to stop defragging company machines as it was a
> resource waste.

I have unmistakeable evidence on XP and 2000 machines at work and my 
parents' XP that defragmentation makes a big difference on machines
that are full enough and have lots of very large files that change.

True, if there is lots of empty space and most files are small, then 
defragging doesn't buy much.

-- 
Wes Groleau

   Pat's Polemics
   http://Ideas.Lang-Learn.us/barrett

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#23599

On 2012-04-09 21:41 , Wes Groleau wrote:
> On 04-09-2012 15:33, Alan Browne wrote:
>> I don't know of anyone who defrags anymore. A few years ago an IT guy
>> asked me if I wanted him to defrag my desktop HD to help speed it up. I
>> looked at him in bemused wonder. He said he knew it didn't really help
>> but so many people ask him to do it for them that he just does it so
>> they feel he's "doing something" for them to help speed up their
>> machines. I told him to stop defragging company machines as it was a
>> resource waste.
>
> I have unmistakeable evidence on XP and 2000 machines at work and my
> parents' XP that defragmentation makes a big difference on machines
> that are full enough and have lots of very large files that change.
>
> True, if there is lots of empty space and most files are small, then
> defragging doesn't buy much.

Tell me: are your file systems FAT32 or NTFS?


-- 
"I was gratified to be able to answer promptly, and I did.
  I said I didn't know."
                           -Samuel Clemens.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#23616

On 04-10-2012 17:36, Alan Browne wrote:
> On 2012-04-09 21:41 , Wes Groleau wrote:
>> On 04-09-2012 15:33, Alan Browne wrote:
>>> I don't know of anyone who defrags anymore. A few years ago an IT guy
>>> asked me if I wanted him to defrag my desktop HD to help speed it up. I
>>> looked at him in bemused wonder. He said he knew it didn't really help
>>> but so many people ask him to do it for them that he just does it so
>>> they feel he's "doing something" for them to help speed up their
>>> machines. I told him to stop defragging company machines as it was a
>>> resource waste.
>>
>> I have unmistakeable evidence on XP and 2000 machines at work and my
>> parents' XP that defragmentation makes a big difference on machines
>> that are full enough and have lots of very large files that change.
>>
>> True, if there is lots of empty space and most files are small, then
>> defragging doesn't buy much.
>
> Tell me: are your file systems FAT32 or NTFS?

NTFS.  Haven't seen a FAT32 anywhere but a USB stick in decades.
Oh, one exception.  Someone I know went from Win 98 to XP without 
reformatting.

-- 
Wes Groleau

    ¡Qué quiero realmente hacer es comer un perrito caliente!
       私が実際にしたいと思う何をホットドッグを食べることである!
    http://Ideas.Lang-Learn.us/WWW?itemid=463

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#23577

On 04-09-2012 15:33, Alan Browne wrote:
> It made me think of people who ask their doctors for antibiotics when
> they have a viral infection and the doctors who (used to) write it up...
> (you think they would have come up with a placebo antibiotic - extra
> expensive too...).

"Clinical studies show that this expensive placebo is more effective 
than the generic."  :-)

-- 
Wes Groleau

   Pat's Polemics
   http://Ideas.Lang-Learn.us/barrett

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#23575

On 04-09-2012 14:48, Barry Margolin wrote:
>   Alan Browne<alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca>  wrote:
>> On 2012-04-08 19:56 , Wes Groleau wrote:
>>
>> Mac when I advised it, two of the things they do need that none of the
>> teens did are defragmentation and malware protection. .
>>
>> Defrag? Puh-leaze.
>>
>> Never used it after Windows 95.  As disks got larger defrag became more
>> and more pointless. (Never mind diminishing returns - it was negative
>> returns as the computer was out of service (or slow) during de-frag and
>> it just added wear and tear to the drive).
>
> I think that was his point: even though there's no reason to do it, it
> has become part of the culture, so the practice continued.  The fact
> that these teens defragged is an indication that they didn't know what
> they were doing.

No, you only read what he quoted.  I've restored a little context.
They had Windows XP, as I do at work.  And at work, I have more than 
enough evidence that fragmentation gradually slows down Windows XP and 
any earlier version if you have files of any significant size.

During degragmentation, the system is slower than one that doesn't need 
defragging--but not as slow as one that's 75% red (red being the color 
of fragments in the defragger GUI.  But I am not demanding a responsive 
system 'round the clock--I eat, sleep, bathe, shop, commute,
go to church, etc., etc.  And every time I went down there, I found that
the results of defragging their machine were noticeable.

Alan also mentioned the availablity of free anti-malware solutions.
I am well aware of that.  But apparently, these teens are not--or 
thought it didn't matter.

So, I stand by my statement that

 > My general suggestion to users who don't already have someone like me
 > managing their system for them is that they should find a teenager who
 > knows their way around the computer and ask them to help.

is not good advice.  The person who needs such help is not qualified to 
distinguish between the teenage minority that can actually help and the 
majority that will like as not make things worse.

-- 
Wes Groleau

   Pat's Polemics
   http://Ideas.Lang-Learn.us/barrett

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#23598

On 2012-04-09 21:37 , Wes Groleau wrote:
> On 04-09-2012 14:48, Barry Margolin wrote:
>> Alan Browne<alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>>> On 2012-04-08 19:56 , Wes Groleau wrote:
>>>
>>> Mac when I advised it, two of the things they do need that none of the
>>> teens did are defragmentation and malware protection. .
>>>
>>> Defrag? Puh-leaze.
>>>
>>> Never used it after Windows 95. As disks got larger defrag became more
>>> and more pointless. (Never mind diminishing returns - it was negative
>>> returns as the computer was out of service (or slow) during de-frag and
>>> it just added wear and tear to the drive).
>>
>> I think that was his point: even though there's no reason to do it, it
>> has become part of the culture, so the practice continued. The fact
>> that these teens defragged is an indication that they didn't know what
>> they were doing.
>
> No, you only read what he quoted. I've restored a little context.
> They had Windows XP, as I do at work. And at work, I have more than
> enough evidence that fragmentation gradually slows down Windows XP and
> any earlier version if you have files of any significant size.

Horsecrap.  Disks are so large, and windows writes into the largest 
available space for a new file (NTFS).  Fragmentation does not occur 
significantly enough to drag down the system enough to notice.

I neglected to mention the FAT16/32 case.  There fragmentation is an 
issue to be sure.  There is little reason for any PC to be using FATxx 
on the system disk or most other volumes.

-- 
"I was gratified to be able to answer promptly, and I did.
  I said I didn't know."
                           -Samuel Clemens.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#23617

On 04-10-2012 17:35, Alan Browne wrote:
> Horsecrap.  Disks are so large, and windows writes into the largest
> available space for a new file (NTFS).  Fragmentation does not occur
> significantly enough to drag down the system enough to notice.

I definitely noticed.  And I have seen defragger displays that were
literally over 75% red.

-- 
Wes Groleau

  "A person with an experience is never at the mercy
   of a person with an argument."
                                  — Ron Allen

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#23626

On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 23:19:38 -0400, Wes Groleau wrote:

> On 04-10-2012 17:35, Alan Browne wrote:
>> Horsecrap.  Disks are so large, and windows writes into the largest
>> available space for a new file (NTFS).  Fragmentation does not occur
>> significantly enough to drag down the system enough to notice.
> 
> I definitely noticed.  And I have seen defragger displays that were
> literally over 75% red.

I had a look at my XP system a couple of days ago and the backup 
partition (on an external USB drive) was 100% red.

Browne is talking out of his arse on this one.



-- 
Paul Sture

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.mac.system

csiph-web