In article <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org
> In article <email@example.com>, Gene S. Berkowitz
> <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>> I don't run a virus checker; I do run a software firewall, and my 5
>> PCs are behind a router. I have zero infections on any of the PCs I
>> have running at home.
> If you don't run a virus checker, how do you know?
Because my systems operate the same as when I initially set them up, I
periodically monitor my ethernet traffic for unusual activity, and I
don't have crashes, pop-ups, or other trouble.
> That's not just foolish, it's stupid. There are free AV products out
> there, some of them very good. I use Avast! on all of my home PC's.
Honestly, when was the last time you ACTUALLY had a virus infect or
try to infect your system? The virus threat is vastly over-reported,
with the big numbers coming from single strains infecting large
>> That said, I don't download from sites I don't
>> trust, I don't use IE or Outlook, and I delete "Hey, Take a Look at
>> This" emails. Basically, the precautions that anyone should take
>> (don't eat found food, don't have unprotected sex with multiple
>> partners, don't leave your keys in the ignition) metaphorically apply
>> to the internet.
> And you don't use IM?
No, I don't, except over my company's VPN, then using a secure client
that does not support remote execution of code.
> Hopefully you at least keep your OS and apps
> updated with the latest patches.
I'd say I'm more conscientious than most in that regard.
> Even Mozilla/Firefox has had it's
> problems, and some exploits were independent of the browser used.
> Even only visiting sites you trust isn't good enough -- there have
> been several reputable sites responsible for spreading infections
> because the site serving their banner ads got compromised, and they
> were serving infected content with the ads.
Which pales in comparison to the amount of damage done by similar
companies who put their client's or employee's data on unsecured, easily
>> An ATA-100 hard drive has a 100 megaBYTE per second transfer rate;
>> you'd have to be supremely lucky to have a DSL line that exceeds 3
>> megaBITS/s, or 0.3% of the maximum hard drive transfer rate. Even a
>> high end FIOS line can only supply 35 megabits/sec, or 3.5% of the
>> hard drive transfer rate.
> You know, there's really nothing to relate Internet activity with disk
> activity. And hard drive performance has almost nothing to do with the
> performance or capability of a system.
I was trying to point out that wire speed is probably the slowest
interface remaining for a typical PC.
>> The real performance killers are not evil spyware; it's cluttering up
>> your PC with "trusted" conveniences like RealPlayer, QuickTime, and
>> CD- recorder "helpers" that sit in your system tray consuming memory
>> and CPU cycles waiting for you to finally play a stream or burn a CD.
> While I agree that they're unnecessary and mostly pointless, the
> system tray apps don't consume cycles. They do consume memory,
> however. Removing them helps, but "modern" OSes consume enough that
> taking that step isn't much by itself. Memory is currently cheap. You
> can significantly improve performance just by adding memory. I
> wouldn't even try to run XP with less than 512M of RAM, and generally
> prefer 1GB.
Excuse me, but throwing RAM at a problem caused by poorly written crap
simply leads to more poorly written crap. In 3 years, you'd be writing
"I wouldn't even try to run Vista 2010 Pro with less than 128GB of RAM,
and generally prefer 1TB."
>> It's operating systems that require 50 separate processes "just in
>> case" you find the need to perform remote program loads from a server
>> that encodes all its pages in Mandarin.
> They don't consume cycles, but they do take memory. Most service
> processes live in a constant blocked state until they're actually
But not all, and they get more pernicious all the time, what with the
"need" for animation, status reporting, and other nonsense.
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well Gene, I do not know how often
_YOU_ get viruses, but I get a dozen or more each day. Fortunatly,
most of them are caught in the virus trap operated for customers of
http://cableone.net where I am a high-speed subscriber. Viruses which
are addressed to me -- regardless of whatever phony name they were
sent from -- fall into a special 'mailbox' in my name set up by
Cable One in red with warning flags all over it. So I can pick through
them if I wish to examine them closer, or most of the time I just
bash them. Often times they get 'sent by' ptownson, (either with the
massis address or cableone.net or whoever. A dozen each day ... I
suggest the problem is worse than you admit. And I am sort of
concientous also; in addition to that virus trap I also run three
scanners, AVG, Ad-Aware, SpyBot Smash and Destroy. PAT]