It was basically a less-stable version of Win98 with a system restore that solved your problem half the time you got it to work (which was about half the time you tried it), and the other half fucked your system up worse than before. It also included a lot of bloat and new bells and whistles, at a time when apparently most people preferred drums that worked (even if it was just an upside-down bucket) over broken bells and cracked whistles.
Hardly. If anything, it's the *most* popular. Popularity doesn't necessarily mean that something is liked, but having a lot of people dislike something as in the case of Vista means it's pretty damn popular. Just not for the reasons you'd like. It's easy to tell which is the least popular Windows ever: Windows 1.0. (It would be Microsoft Bob, except that's not actually "Windows".)
However, even for the "most hated" award, it's a tight race between ME and Vista. I'd say the hatred of ME is more intense, while the hate for Vista is more widespread.
But first, we need to antagonize those aliens into attacking us by finding a device to give us wormhole technology, to allow us to go find their planets and let them know we exist.
First off, they're actually adding the ability to get out and walk around in stations. It's a new component to the game and it's not out yet, but there are videos of doing it. It's supposed to add an additional element to the game, but personally I'm all about the spaceships anyhow - to me, character profile pictures are just a way to recognize my corpmates at a glance.
Good for them. Too little, waaaay too late.
Second, if you think EVE is a lonely game, you're doing it wrong. If you've been in the game for whole months without joining a corporation, well... jeez, even the tutorial stresses how important corps are in EVE. Whether for help with getting on top of the game, support in small-scale PvP, getting into the real military actions that make EVE so much fun (from my perspective), of just social interaction... corps are where it's at, man. There are plenty that will recruit you right after you finish your trial, and some even before that.
When I play an MMOG, I like it to be at least *somewhat* social right from the start. That means, when I first log in on my first character I like to see at least one or two other people running around preferably right away, but definitely within the first hour or two. So tell me, how likely is that to be the case in Eve by now?
It also helps to have an experienced player, preferably one already in a corp, help you get started. Not only will you save time and earn more money, but you'll have somebody to vouch for you with regards to corporate admission.
Right. So basically, in the end what it boils down to is if you *really* want to join the game and have fun now, you have to know someone already in the game with sufficient connections and resources to give you a good jump start. Thanks for that information. Since I don't know anyone who plays the game, now I know for a fact I can safely ignore the game and not be missing anything I'd enjoy.
No, his predictions are overly optimistic. And 9/11 didn't have that big of an effect on how fast technology advanced. He just (wrongly) assumed that most people are more closely as excited about new tech as he is. In reality, most people don't like change, and they're not going to adopt new tech that fast.
My personal prediction is that his predictions for '09 will be basically where we're at in 8 years from now, and not really before. With the exception of his 'personal lan' idea, which we won't see for at least 15 years, if ever. As for 'rotating media', we'll probably be mostly rid of hard drives in about 4 years, but still be using optical media for at least the next 8.
And ultimately it will fail, or at best be a niche device. A PC is something you sit down right in front of, with the screen generally about 1.5-3 feet away. It's not a console where you sit/stand 5-10 feet away and have plenty of room to swing such a controller. If there were really a significant market for this, the drivers to use the Wii controller would be a lot more popular and people would already be using those.
Wrong. With any metric you go by, FFXI is well ahead of Eve. LOTRO and WAR also both have around the same or more subscribers as Eve. Given how many slices the high fantasy MMORPG pie is split into, it's amazing that there's so many doing so well compared to Eve.
What they talk about is the 500 vs. 500 fleet battle in some system that resulted in 20 lost capital ships for one side or the other and the winners took sovereignity of the system when the smoke cleared.
And the main reason they talk about it after it happens is because it happens so rarely, and 98% of their time is spent grinding materials to make those ships. AMIRITE?
Something you wouldn't understand without having played it for a long time is that Eve actually does ease you into it.
So basically, you have to have played it for a long time to really understand the tutorial? Yeah, I know that's not what you meant, but it's still effectively what you're saying. Either way, the tutorial sucks. Period.
It has so much depth that if it eased you in at the kind of rate you're looking for, you'd still be learning basic mechanics when you've been playing for 2 years. It's a very unforgiving world in which you can experience loss like in no other game I've ever played, right down to the skills you've spent so much (real life) time training. It's a game where success or failure can depend on how quickly you can adapt to a radically changing environment with a vast array of competing counter-measures and strategies. Gaining a deep understanding of how everything stacks together and how to counter all kinds of various tactics and tools on the fly requires that you learn at an incredible rate constantly. And just when you think you're getting the hang of it, a new expansion comes out (at the rate of two per year) that vastly changes the balance of things such that new tactics and ideas emerge.
Not really "depth". Mostly just complexity and change for the sake of complexity and change. Which is great, for the small niche group of people that really get off on that kind of thing.
Really, if you don't make it through the tutorial, Eve probably isn't the game for you.
No doubt. But then, that means Eve just isn't for very many people, which means their ROI for the game is a lot less than it could have been. Which is basically the whole point of TFA. Sucks for them, but it doesn't really matter to me one way or another. There's plenty of other better MMOs to play.
That's fine, as no game should try to be perfect for everyone as it will end up being poor for anyone. Eve is really for those who want to be constantly challenged in new and different ways by intelligent adversaries using skills and tools that work together in extremely complex ways. It has within it the ability to play as openly as any life simulator, but with far more danger than anything else I've seen before it.
You're right, there's definitely not going to be a game that's going to be perfect for everyone, but it's definitely possible to make a game that's a lot more fun and appealing to a lot more people than Eve is. (There's about 11.5 million WoW players right now who could give you some insight on that.) And it's also possible to change the first stages of *any* game to make it a lot more fun and appealing to newcomers, enticing them to stay on and thereby increasing your playerbase without changing a damn thing in the last stages of the game. Eve just fails at it, that's all.
If the challenge of the tutorial turns you off, then the game itself will almost certainly turn you off as well. In that sense, I think the tutorial does a great job of both educating those who truly are interested in Eve's world view and in pushing away those who ultimately won't enjoy themselves anyway.
Not necessarily. Or are you trying to say the rest of the game sucks as badly as the tutorial? Because it's very possible for a tutorial to be very shitty and the game to be a lot more appealing later. For a great example, see City of Heroes/Villains. The game is interesting for about 5 minutes, and quickly becomes very frustrating - until you start getting your better powers and enhancements at about level 20 or so. Then it starts to get fun. LOTS of fun. But not many players stick around that long, because the first 10-15 levels are mostly a lesson in frustration. I'd *HOPE* Eve's failure is mostly the same, only magnified. Because quite honestly, of games I've tried that enjoyed any kind of real popularity, the Eve tutorial was easily the worst 15 minutes I've spent.
I also tried Eve and didn't get past the tutorial. The first big turnoff was finding out that I didn't actually have a character, only a ship. Sorry, space-based games have never really been a favorite of mine, and to play a game as a "ship" just wasn't very appealing. But that aside, it also didn't take me long to realize that I would be spending a LOT of time by myself, and that when I did run into other players, most likely the first thing that would happen is I would get stopped in the dirt and lose all my stuff. Yep, that's a great way to get new players. "Here, play in the newbie area by yourself for a few months, then you can go out and get slaughtered by a player and lose everything you gained in those months."
There's many reasons WoW has so many more subscribers than other MMOs, and the ease of getting into the game is only one of them. Another one of the biggest reasons is how easy it is to socialize, and how much you can do to interact with other players. This includes a good chat system, popular places in the game to hang out with people, ease of forming groups, emotes that let you do personal actions at/with other players, etc.
How is buying a stock someone else is selling for a profit a loss for the seller? If they bought at $5 and it went to $10 and then sold it to you, then it went to $15 and you sold it to me, then it went to $20 and I sold it to Bill Gates, didn't we all make $5?
Nope. Bill hasn't made a dime. In fact, he's out $20 and until he's made dividends on it, all he has is a piece of paper. So at this point, we've either made $5 each at his expense, or all our profits are an illusion.
Now if the stock then falls back to $5 while Bill holds it, he has a paper loss of $15. He can sell it at at a loss and use it to write off other gainers in his portfolio, or he can just hold tight if he thinks the company is a good one and wait for it to go up. It's true that for every seller there has to be a buyer, but that doesn't make it zero-sum. We didn't profit directly off Bill's losses. And Bill's losses aren't realized until he sells--the stock may turn around and go to $100 in two years and he makes out more than the rest of us.
Which is all irrelevant, because until the actual stockholder has made actual dividends on an actual product being manufactured, it's still all smoke and mirrors. It's still either a profit at the loss of someone else, or it's an illusionary gain.
The thing is, wealth isn't zero-sum. It can be created. You don't have to gain wealth at someone else's expense.
But until that wealth is the result of an actual product sold or service rendered, it has to be zero-sum.
As for inflation, the stock market averages something like 9% to 11% per year annualized over the past fixty years or something. That's better than inflation. But it also doesn't mean that each year you gain that much. Some years you gain 25%, and some years you lose 40% (such as, say, 2008). In the end, it averages out to between 9% and 11%--the longer you hold, the longer your returns tend to mimic those numbers. Inflation tends to be less than 5% a year, so the stock market will return more than inflation eats on average.
Yes, and a large part of that gain will be based on actual products manufactured or services rendered. Some of it will be based on the losses of other not-so-lucky investors. But the actual buying/selling/trading of stocks and options that don't result in an actual payment of dividends are all a lot of passing money around with no real result other than that some people get rich at the expense of others, and some of that money is poured down the drain to pay the people to pass the money around.
So yeah, I guess it's not truly zero-sum: in the end it's a net loss for the participants, because people are being paid to do nothing better than waste their time passing around money.
That's interesting, hadn't thought of it that way before. So doesn't that also mean then that any of these transactions that don't result in the acquisition of a stock that pays dividends means that your profit is either:
1. illusionary, due to inflation 2. a gain at the direct loss of someone else
So in reality, the net gain for all participants is zero.
I highly recommend doing exactly that. There's a handful of games for the Cube that will give you a lot of mileage, especially with friends. You'll probably want to pick up Super Smash Brothers and Mario Party 5 for starters.
The PS2 is graphically less capable than a GameCube.
Which unfortunately isn't saying much. The Game Cube did have a bit more graphics horsepower, but not by a huge margin. And correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm fairly certain the Wii uses more or less the same graphics hardware as the Game Cube.
Now I know that doesn't sound like it, but I actually am more or less a Nintendo fanboy. The only new consoles I've ever purchased are Nintendo. Game Boy, GBC, GBA, DS, Game Cube, and Wii.
Basically what this story more or less reinforces is that most people care more about how much fun a game is than how pretty it looks. Which we've already known for a while.
So based on what has been posted here, the message is "slaughter them till they learn their place, and when they come begging for peace it might be time to stop".
Yes, boot disks are nice, but Unlocker fits on any USB flash drive and is trivially easy to find and download any time you have an internet connection, even on dialup. And it works. The other thing I really like about Unlocker is it can sometimes give you information you can't get any other way. And that is, when you try to delete a file that's in use, if it can find a handle on the file to unlock it, you can see exactly what program is using the file. Granted, that's usually not *needed* to remove the threats, but it's interesting nonetheless.
I can tell you for a fact that Malwarebytes doesn't work 100%. I've gone through and done a manual check immediately after having Malwarebytes delete everything it found, and still found more files it missed.
1. Run Hijackthis and look for any suspicious startup entries. Even the average computer user will be able to rule out most entries as things they recognize, meaning you won't have to google more than a handful, which will probably take 5-10 minutes at the most. 2. Install Unlocker. http://ccollomb.free.fr/unlocker/ 2. Browse to locations of files linked to by suspicious startup entries. Check date created. 3. Go to Windows directory, sort files by date, google suspicious files found since above date. Remove files confirmed to be malware or files for which you cannot find any information. (If you can't find any info on them, they're either randomly generated malware names, or malware too new to show up yet in a search.) 4. Do the same in Windows\System32. 5. Run a system cleanup to delete all Temp files and Temporary Internet Files. 6. Now delete the original malware folder. 7. Delete the startup entries with Hijackthis. 8. Restart computer. Should be clean.
The best part is, this will work with virtually *any* malware infection, and will generally catch things that even Malwarebytes misses.
Oh yes, and one thing I forgot to mention that I found particularly interesting is how they manage to get so many people infected. They do it via google-bombing. I had been puzzling over how even careful users were getting infected, until I saw it happen on my own laptop: I was running a search on a black friday laptop model for more info, and the first search result on google gave me a panic popup (which I axed from task manager) and sent me to an Antivirus 2009 page. Naturally, knowing how to avoid their tactics I didn't get infected, but most people would not be so informed.
We use it at my job too (phone support) and most of the time it gets rid of it. Occasionally though, even that can't get rid of it. Even when it does seem to clean it, sometimes it misses a few files. My personal method is to first check the malware hiding places manually and eradicate anything I find, and then let Malwarebytes scan to see if I missed anything.
But yes, I can attest to the widespread plague of Antivirus 2009 and its associates.
I originally learned to type on manual and electric typewriters. But I much prefer the tactile response of the new Logitech (and similar) keyboards. I use the original G15 model, which is still mostly functional despite the Pepsi incident a while ago. The only thing that annoys me is that I can't buy a new one that is fully functional. As for the clicky keyboards such as the Model M, they slow you down and they're incredibly annoying to boot. Anyone who really thinks they can type faster on it probably just never learned how to type properly.
And yes, I know when I've typed something without looking at the screen. If you've properly learned how to touch type, you can generally type significantly faster not looking at the screen or keyboard, regardless of the type of keyboard you use. In fact, I often purposefully look away from my screen just for that reason.
Slashdot Mirror
It was basically a less-stable version of Win98 with a system restore that solved your problem half the time you got it to work (which was about half the time you tried it), and the other half fucked your system up worse than before. It also included a lot of bloat and new bells and whistles, at a time when apparently most people preferred drums that worked (even if it was just an upside-down bucket) over broken bells and cracked whistles.
Because E is the most used letter in the English alphabet!! Duh!!
Hardly. If anything, it's the *most* popular. Popularity doesn't necessarily mean that something is liked, but having a lot of people dislike something as in the case of Vista means it's pretty damn popular. Just not for the reasons you'd like. It's easy to tell which is the least popular Windows ever: Windows 1.0. (It would be Microsoft Bob, except that's not actually "Windows".)
However, even for the "most hated" award, it's a tight race between ME and Vista. I'd say the hatred of ME is more intense, while the hate for Vista is more widespread.
But first, we need to antagonize those aliens into attacking us by finding a device to give us wormhole technology, to allow us to go find their planets and let them know we exist.
First off, they're actually adding the ability to get out and walk around in stations. It's a new component to the game and it's not out yet, but there are videos of doing it. It's supposed to add an additional element to the game, but personally I'm all about the spaceships anyhow - to me, character profile pictures are just a way to recognize my corpmates at a glance.
Good for them. Too little, waaaay too late.
Second, if you think EVE is a lonely game, you're doing it wrong. If you've been in the game for whole months without joining a corporation, well... jeez, even the tutorial stresses how important corps are in EVE. Whether for help with getting on top of the game, support in small-scale PvP, getting into the real military actions that make EVE so much fun (from my perspective), of just social interaction... corps are where it's at, man. There are plenty that will recruit you right after you finish your trial, and some even before that.
When I play an MMOG, I like it to be at least *somewhat* social right from the start. That means, when I first log in on my first character I like to see at least one or two other people running around preferably right away, but definitely within the first hour or two. So tell me, how likely is that to be the case in Eve by now?
It also helps to have an experienced player, preferably one already in a corp, help you get started. Not only will you save time and earn more money, but you'll have somebody to vouch for you with regards to corporate admission.
Right. So basically, in the end what it boils down to is if you *really* want to join the game and have fun now, you have to know someone already in the game with sufficient connections and resources to give you a good jump start. Thanks for that information. Since I don't know anyone who plays the game, now I know for a fact I can safely ignore the game and not be missing anything I'd enjoy.
No, his predictions are overly optimistic. And 9/11 didn't have that big of an effect on how fast technology advanced. He just (wrongly) assumed that most people are more closely as excited about new tech as he is. In reality, most people don't like change, and they're not going to adopt new tech that fast.
My personal prediction is that his predictions for '09 will be basically where we're at in 8 years from now, and not really before. With the exception of his 'personal lan' idea, which we won't see for at least 15 years, if ever. As for 'rotating media', we'll probably be mostly rid of hard drives in about 4 years, but still be using optical media for at least the next 8.
And ultimately it will fail, or at best be a niche device. A PC is something you sit down right in front of, with the screen generally about 1.5-3 feet away. It's not a console where you sit/stand 5-10 feet away and have plenty of room to swing such a controller. If there were really a significant market for this, the drivers to use the Wii controller would be a lot more popular and people would already be using those.
Wrong. With any metric you go by, FFXI is well ahead of Eve. LOTRO and WAR also both have around the same or more subscribers as Eve. Given how many slices the high fantasy MMORPG pie is split into, it's amazing that there's so many doing so well compared to Eve.
What they talk about is the 500 vs. 500 fleet battle in some system that resulted in 20 lost capital ships for one side or the other and the winners took sovereignity of the system when the smoke cleared.
And the main reason they talk about it after it happens is because it happens so rarely, and 98% of their time is spent grinding materials to make those ships. AMIRITE?
Something you wouldn't understand without having played it for a long time is that Eve actually does ease you into it.
So basically, you have to have played it for a long time to really understand the tutorial? Yeah, I know that's not what you meant, but it's still effectively what you're saying. Either way, the tutorial sucks. Period.
It has so much depth that if it eased you in at the kind of rate you're looking for, you'd still be learning basic mechanics when you've been playing for 2 years. It's a very unforgiving world in which you can experience loss like in no other game I've ever played, right down to the skills you've spent so much (real life) time training. It's a game where success or failure can depend on how quickly you can adapt to a radically changing environment with a vast array of competing counter-measures and strategies. Gaining a deep understanding of how everything stacks together and how to counter all kinds of various tactics and tools on the fly requires that you learn at an incredible rate constantly. And just when you think you're getting the hang of it, a new expansion comes out (at the rate of two per year) that vastly changes the balance of things such that new tactics and ideas emerge.
Not really "depth". Mostly just complexity and change for the sake of complexity and change. Which is great, for the small niche group of people that really get off on that kind of thing.
Really, if you don't make it through the tutorial, Eve probably isn't the game for you.
No doubt. But then, that means Eve just isn't for very many people, which means their ROI for the game is a lot less than it could have been. Which is basically the whole point of TFA. Sucks for them, but it doesn't really matter to me one way or another. There's plenty of other better MMOs to play.
That's fine, as no game should try to be perfect for everyone as it will end up being poor for anyone. Eve is really for those who want to be constantly challenged in new and different ways by intelligent adversaries using skills and tools that work together in extremely complex ways. It has within it the ability to play as openly as any life simulator, but with far more danger than anything else I've seen before it.
You're right, there's definitely not going to be a game that's going to be perfect for everyone, but it's definitely possible to make a game that's a lot more fun and appealing to a lot more people than Eve is. (There's about 11.5 million WoW players right now who could give you some insight on that.) And it's also possible to change the first stages of *any* game to make it a lot more fun and appealing to newcomers, enticing them to stay on and thereby increasing your playerbase without changing a damn thing in the last stages of the game. Eve just fails at it, that's all.
If the challenge of the tutorial turns you off, then the game itself will almost certainly turn you off as well. In that sense, I think the tutorial does a great job of both educating those who truly are interested in Eve's world view and in pushing away those who ultimately won't enjoy themselves anyway.
Not necessarily. Or are you trying to say the rest of the game sucks as badly as the tutorial? Because it's very possible for a tutorial to be very shitty and the game to be a lot more appealing later. For a great example, see City of Heroes/Villains. The game is interesting for about 5 minutes, and quickly becomes very frustrating - until you start getting your better powers and enhancements at about level 20 or so. Then it starts to get fun. LOTS of fun. But not many players stick around that long, because the first 10-15 levels are mostly a lesson in frustration. I'd *HOPE* Eve's failure is mostly the same, only magnified. Because quite honestly, of games I've tried that enjoyed any kind of real popularity, the Eve tutorial was easily the worst 15 minutes I've spent.
Well said, and all true.
I also tried Eve and didn't get past the tutorial. The first big turnoff was finding out that I didn't actually have a character, only a ship. Sorry, space-based games have never really been a favorite of mine, and to play a game as a "ship" just wasn't very appealing. But that aside, it also didn't take me long to realize that I would be spending a LOT of time by myself, and that when I did run into other players, most likely the first thing that would happen is I would get stopped in the dirt and lose all my stuff. Yep, that's a great way to get new players. "Here, play in the newbie area by yourself for a few months, then you can go out and get slaughtered by a player and lose everything you gained in those months."
There's many reasons WoW has so many more subscribers than other MMOs, and the ease of getting into the game is only one of them. Another one of the biggest reasons is how easy it is to socialize, and how much you can do to interact with other players. This includes a good chat system, popular places in the game to hang out with people, ease of forming groups, emotes that let you do personal actions at/with other players, etc.
How is buying a stock someone else is selling for a profit a loss for the seller? If they bought at $5 and it went to $10 and then sold it to you, then it went to $15 and you sold it to me, then it went to $20 and I sold it to Bill Gates, didn't we all make $5?
Nope. Bill hasn't made a dime. In fact, he's out $20 and until he's made dividends on it, all he has is a piece of paper. So at this point, we've either made $5 each at his expense, or all our profits are an illusion.
Now if the stock then falls back to $5 while Bill holds it, he has a paper loss of $15. He can sell it at at a loss and use it to write off other gainers in his portfolio, or he can just hold tight if he thinks the company is a good one and wait for it to go up. It's true that for every seller there has to be a buyer, but that doesn't make it zero-sum. We didn't profit directly off Bill's losses. And Bill's losses aren't realized until he sells--the stock may turn around and go to $100 in two years and he makes out more than the rest of us.
Which is all irrelevant, because until the actual stockholder has made actual dividends on an actual product being manufactured, it's still all smoke and mirrors. It's still either a profit at the loss of someone else, or it's an illusionary gain.
The thing is, wealth isn't zero-sum. It can be created. You don't have to gain wealth at someone else's expense.
But until that wealth is the result of an actual product sold or service rendered, it has to be zero-sum.
As for inflation, the stock market averages something like 9% to 11% per year annualized over the past fixty years or something. That's better than inflation. But it also doesn't mean that each year you gain that much. Some years you gain 25%, and some years you lose 40% (such as, say, 2008). In the end, it averages out to between 9% and 11%--the longer you hold, the longer your returns tend to mimic those numbers. Inflation tends to be less than 5% a year, so the stock market will return more than inflation eats on average.
Yes, and a large part of that gain will be based on actual products manufactured or services rendered. Some of it will be based on the losses of other not-so-lucky investors. But the actual buying/selling/trading of stocks and options that don't result in an actual payment of dividends are all a lot of passing money around with no real result other than that some people get rich at the expense of others, and some of that money is poured down the drain to pay the people to pass the money around.
So yeah, I guess it's not truly zero-sum: in the end it's a net loss for the participants, because people are being paid to do nothing better than waste their time passing around money.
That's interesting, hadn't thought of it that way before. So doesn't that also mean then that any of these transactions that don't result in the acquisition of a stock that pays dividends means that your profit is either:
1. illusionary, due to inflation
2. a gain at the direct loss of someone else
So in reality, the net gain for all participants is zero.
I highly recommend doing exactly that. There's a handful of games for the Cube that will give you a lot of mileage, especially with friends. You'll probably want to pick up Super Smash Brothers and Mario Party 5 for starters.
The PS2 is graphically less capable than a GameCube.
Which unfortunately isn't saying much. The Game Cube did have a bit more graphics horsepower, but not by a huge margin. And correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm fairly certain the Wii uses more or less the same graphics hardware as the Game Cube.
Now I know that doesn't sound like it, but I actually am more or less a Nintendo fanboy. The only new consoles I've ever purchased are Nintendo. Game Boy, GBC, GBA, DS, Game Cube, and Wii.
Basically what this story more or less reinforces is that most people care more about how much fun a game is than how pretty it looks. Which we've already known for a while.
So based on what has been posted here, the message is "slaughter them till they learn their place, and when they come begging for peace it might be time to stop".
Yeah, Hitler did that too.
You might not get the ticket, but there's definitely lots of places where your insurance does pay.
Yes, boot disks are nice, but Unlocker fits on any USB flash drive and is trivially easy to find and download any time you have an internet connection, even on dialup. And it works. The other thing I really like about Unlocker is it can sometimes give you information you can't get any other way. And that is, when you try to delete a file that's in use, if it can find a handle on the file to unlock it, you can see exactly what program is using the file. Granted, that's usually not *needed* to remove the threats, but it's interesting nonetheless.
I can tell you for a fact that Malwarebytes doesn't work 100%. I've gone through and done a manual check immediately after having Malwarebytes delete everything it found, and still found more files it missed.
It's a good program, but it's not perfect.
Try this instead.
1. Run Hijackthis and look for any suspicious startup entries. Even the average computer user will be able to rule out most entries as things they recognize, meaning you won't have to google more than a handful, which will probably take 5-10 minutes at the most.
2. Install Unlocker. http://ccollomb.free.fr/unlocker/
2. Browse to locations of files linked to by suspicious startup entries. Check date created.
3. Go to Windows directory, sort files by date, google suspicious files found since above date. Remove files confirmed to be malware or files for which you cannot find any information. (If you can't find any info on them, they're either randomly generated malware names, or malware too new to show up yet in a search.)
4. Do the same in Windows\System32.
5. Run a system cleanup to delete all Temp files and Temporary Internet Files.
6. Now delete the original malware folder.
7. Delete the startup entries with Hijackthis.
8. Restart computer. Should be clean.
The best part is, this will work with virtually *any* malware infection, and will generally catch things that even Malwarebytes misses.
That's what Unlocker is for. http://ccollomb.free.fr/unlocker/
Oh yes, and one thing I forgot to mention that I found particularly interesting is how they manage to get so many people infected. They do it via google-bombing. I had been puzzling over how even careful users were getting infected, until I saw it happen on my own laptop: I was running a search on a black friday laptop model for more info, and the first search result on google gave me a panic popup (which I axed from task manager) and sent me to an Antivirus 2009 page. Naturally, knowing how to avoid their tactics I didn't get infected, but most people would not be so informed.
We use it at my job too (phone support) and most of the time it gets rid of it. Occasionally though, even that can't get rid of it. Even when it does seem to clean it, sometimes it misses a few files. My personal method is to first check the malware hiding places manually and eradicate anything I find, and then let Malwarebytes scan to see if I missed anything.
But yes, I can attest to the widespread plague of Antivirus 2009 and its associates.
I originally learned to type on manual and electric typewriters. But I much prefer the tactile response of the new Logitech (and similar) keyboards. I use the original G15 model, which is still mostly functional despite the Pepsi incident a while ago. The only thing that annoys me is that I can't buy a new one that is fully functional. As for the clicky keyboards such as the Model M, they slow you down and they're incredibly annoying to boot. Anyone who really thinks they can type faster on it probably just never learned how to type properly.
And yes, I know when I've typed something without looking at the screen. If you've properly learned how to touch type, you can generally type significantly faster not looking at the screen or keyboard, regardless of the type of keyboard you use. In fact, I often purposefully look away from my screen just for that reason.
Some people even believe apples are things you eat!