Seriously, has anybody ever seen a serious virus problem in Windows when using AV protection?
in [Home Built PC]
|
From: Dustin Cook on 24 Mar 2010 23:31 "FromTheRafters" <erratic(a)nomail.afraid.org> wrote in news:hoel86$c6q$1 @news.eternal-september.org: > "ToolPackinMama" <philnblanc(a)comcast.net> wrote in message > news:hoe7t9$umc$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... >> On 3/24/2010 5:31 PM, FromTheRafters wrote: >> >>> Electronics (and motors in particular) consume more energy when they >>> are >>> first energized. >> >> More... for the whole rest of their lives? Or more for the rest of >> the day? Or more... what do you mean by "more"? > > Greater than less ( more > less ). With a motor, it takes more ( > > less) power until the motor spins up to generate the opposing "back > voltage" that a spinning motor generates. Running for some period of > time is equal to this power consumption. De-energizing for less than > that period of time will not save you any power. As for the bulbs, there > is that factor plus the efficiency and the life expectancy of the bulb > is reduced with multiple starts (though I don't know exactly why). If it's a filament based bulb, it's due to the thermals of the wire heating and rapidly cooling. It's why on the incandescent house lights in the states, if you hit the light switch rapidly for a little while you might burn a bulb out. hehehe.. Filament will only take so much. -- "Hrrngh! Someday I'm going to hurl this...er...roll this...hrrngh.. nudge this boulder right down a cliff." - Goblin Warrior
From: FromTheRafters on 24 Mar 2010 23:40 "Char Jackson" <none(a)none.invalid> wrote in message news:1dklq5pl1slkc856n8c2tu8t0fu14cet5e(a)4ax.com... > On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 20:19:14 -0400, Leythos <spam999free(a)rrohio.com> > wrote: > >>In article <hoe7t9$umc$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, >>philnblanc(a)comcast.net says... >>> I also am going to continue to urge people to turn theirs off when >>> not >>> in use, and I urge you all to do the same - but NOT because it will >>> extend the life of the components. >>> >> >>If you consider the following: >> >>Your LCD monitor goes to sleep in XX minutes if not used >>Your Hard-Drive goes to sleep in XX minutes if not used >>Your CPU throttles down in XX minutes under no load >>Your case fans throttle down when the heat decreases >> >>If you use your computer for 12-16 hours per day, how much money does >>it >>save you over 1 year to turn it off for 8 hours per day? >> >>Do you actually know the power level difference when all of the power >>saving features, except suspend/hibernation, are used vs. turning the >>computer completely off? > > If you assume a power savings of 50 watts (low power state versus off > state) and a KWh cost of $.10, my back of the napkin calculation is > just under $15 a year in savings. Obviously, the actual numbers will > vary depending on the specific system and the local cost of power, > causing the result to vary. I was thinking about this while watching my mother (83) walking around unplugging the vampires. The phone, the intercom, the radio - then over to the TV and the cable box... I was trying to calculate the yearly energy expenditure versus the savings but couldn't find the conversion table for kilowatt hours to oatmeal bowls. ....and I thought this scientific calculator had everything...
From: Rex Ballard on 24 Mar 2010 23:42 On Mar 23, 4:18 pm, RayLopez99 <raylope...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 23, 9:46 pm, Rex Ballard <rex.ball...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > On Mar 23, 3:51 am, RayLopez99 <raylope...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > For your machine? I doubt it. I should point out that was for my Windows Machine. The other machines had Linux and had no problem. > Probably for others. And who knows > what stupid thing they did to install those viruses. Sometimes all you have to do is preview an e-mail in Outlook, or visit a site in IE. Each time I got one of those viruses, it was usually after switching to IE because some site needed IE with ActiveX controls. Even though the ActiveX controls were legit, I made the fatal mistake of using the browser for other sites. > > These are the ones that got past kasparskyhttp://www.viruslist.com/en/analysis?pubid=204792067 > >http://www.virusbtn.com/index > Yeah, nice links, thanks, but they prove my point: the #1 on the list > Net-Worm.Win32.Kido.ih has infected 58200 machines, which sounds like > a lot, Actually, I think that was 58200 variants on 1 machine. > Until you realize there are nearly 1 billion Windows machines > out there. I didn't see anything that said they monitored 1 billion machines. If you don't know what is being measured, or how it was measured. Worse, I had a hard time seeing what was measured. > Let's make it easy and say there are 582000000 Windows > machines (a low number). So one out of 10000 Windows machines are > infected by this #1 virus. On the other hand, that might have been the number of viruses unleashed on 1 machine that didn't get caught. Which means that if you have 1 billion machines there are 58 trillion crashes or infections possible. See if you can see what was measured. How many machines? How many virus variants? > Second place was half this number, so one > out of 20000 Windows machines. Or 20 trillion possible infections. Let's see if we can find out how many machines were in the sample. Let's see if these were the various variants (nearly 250,000 variants out there).
From: FromTheRafters on 24 Mar 2010 23:48 "Dustin Cook" <bughunter.dustin(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:Xns9D45F04507BD5HHI2948AJD832(a)69.16.185.247... > If it's a filament based bulb, it's due to the thermals of the wire > heating and rapidly cooling. It's why on the incandescent house lights > in > the states, if you hit the light switch rapidly for a little while you > might burn a bulb out. hehehe.. Filament will only take so much. No, it's the compact florescent bulb. It has some sort of a ballast circuit and mercury vapor I think.
From: Rex Ballard on 24 Mar 2010 23:50
On Mar 24, 7:55 am, Peter <pete.ivesAll_stR...(a)blueyonder.co.uk> wrote: > In article <0e0f17c7-572c-4f3f-a85c- > 7a42a361c...(a)d27g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>, rex.ball...(a)gmail.com > says... > > On Mar 23, 3:51 am, RayLopez99 <raylope...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Virii have a source. A point of origin when the computer starts. > Eliminate the start point or points from running and the virus becomes > dormant and you can then remove it without it putting itself back on > your system. That isn't always the case. Sky, Bagel, and BugBear not only keep reinstalling theselves, they also disable the antivirus AND keep it from letting you know that it's not working. |