Not correct. Most of the MBR infections seem to be on Win7 64bit.
These programs set themselves up before anyone notices and we have little opportunity to react by modifying the bios from the default.
These programs will also write virtual file (system) that is encrypted and hence the malware can't scan it to find and remove the viruses.
What they are also missing in their explanation of the increase is that these malware guys are doing far more than just modifying that portion of the drive. They will erase all your "all programs" folder contents and hide all your personal files and modify the registry and other permissions making it very difficult to recover from even when you discover they are there and try a removal procedure.
What Symantec also didn't explain was that it takes a lot of work to rid the computer of these viruses and that the average antivirus tools are highly unsuccessful at the removal. None of the antivirus software tries to correct the problems created even if they can get rid of the virus. I know some anti-malware apps try to reset some registry keys to default, but that's not what I'm talking about.
You can really screw things up unless you know what you are doing. Even Microsoft has thrown their arms up at times giving up with the directive that you should erase first in some cases because you just can't be sure you got rid of the malware.
Of course this emboldens the malware authors because it tells them that they are headed in the right direction or are already successful. Hell, if you can get the biggest software company in the world to give up then you win.
Citation needed showing the demand for a citation for every post.
Nimble minds grasp concepts better than those obfuscating with citation demands.
Let's not be morons. Of course they do. How much do you think Google is worth? How do you think they came into being? They created a business plan and followed through.
So, we have a pundit writing for a news rag that is assuming that Google doesn't know how to make up a business plan for their purchase of Motorola? And Motorola is going to be folded into Google? Nope. It will remain on its own.
Google knows what it is doing and certainly they know how to make a business plan. That's like telling a billionaire that he doesn't know how to make money.
I said no such thing. My post spoke directly to the parent. His claim, as i pointed out, applies to all android devices, hence his failure to make a valid point.
No one even remotely debunked it. Shipments ultimately result in sales. All companies count shipments. Every one in every market for every product. Android isn't failing to meet consumer demands nor needs. The HP Touchpad maybe is a failure but there is absolutely no evidence android fails in any measure.
Eh? At one time only ipads were being sold. Even if some minor niche device other than ipad was being sold ipad was the market. That means virtually every android device takes something away. So every sale of an android device is a loss of some portion of Apple's market.
The issues with android have little to do with viability and everything to do with the failures internally of the manufacturing companies. Android is a solid technology its only the slowness to market that allowed one company to become dominate. This won't last long. Apple has closed technologies with a defective philosophy. Just as android phones vastly outsell ios phones android tablets will outsell all the others.
Nope. It phones home with identifying info regularly.. And their systems have been collecting wifi and cellular data for a long time. You can read about their exploits in the recent news.
Because only 1% of all apps are any good. The rest are just there. There are only a few categories of usefulness. With a walled garden you suffer this more. Android would have fewer apps but its' open nature allows innovation outside the box. It allows for more complete and useful apps. A closed garden where the warden disallows based on arbitrary criteria kills like a parasite. In other words you can't duplicate features so your whole app is outright denied, even if that duplication is superior to those grown by the warden.
More likely they can't express how much, in words, that they like them, even for sales reps.
You have no clue how easy it is to show what you are doing to someone watching on one, nor how bad it used to be to drag around a huge laptop while trying to find a spot to set the boat anchor down just to demo something.
And tablets are very fast. They are also buggy, every one, but still highly useable.
That should explain why, for the most part. People don't know that they exist. If it wasn't for sites like slashdot I'd not know either.
Ask those around you about why they have not chosen to buy one.
I own two tablets. I use them every day. But I search for other things to do with them. The software just isn't there. Lack of software and high costs are the major stumbling blocks to adoption.
A buddy bought one shortly after I did. Turns out he bought one for his wife also.
Android tablets have taken twenty percent of the market from Apple. That is not sluggish. Android phones are being activated at over 600,000 a day. Microsoft makes more on extortion from companies that create android devices than they do on their own phone/tablet sales.
Windows 8 has far too many consumer hostile drm features. Let's not forget that upgrading to Windows 8 is not necessary, and vendors have been veering away from Microsoft's offerings for tablets. Both Apple and Google are many times the senior of Microsoft which has no realistic technology in today's market.
Smart phones are common-place. You can even buy a pre-paid Motorola Triumph ($300 for the phone and for $35.00 the pre-paid plan gives you unlimited text and data). All in all, you can save, over a two year period, nearly $1800. Even if you choose a more expensive plan, say $45.00 for 1200 minutes and unlimited text/data, you still save considerably.
Those that don't want to go this route and have a smart phone can use a chat program (e-buddy is free, there are several others) or Google Voice to deliver text messages and to have conversations.
Is AT&T so desperate that they need to make money this way or are they so powerful and influential that they need not fear competition?
These aren't products till they are out the door. This is just advertising for them. Customer OS--Not a good idea. Runs Android Apps. Good. Better screen resolution. Good. Fusion Garage? Not so sure. It took them forever to release the one product they had and then they dumped it and their customers. Big sting with a lot of pain. Now they want you to buy such expensive models? Cut them down to $299 (for wifi) to $399 (for 3g) and they might have a chance. Most Android tablets are way over priced. They all need to come down significantly.
I like the idea of another Android tablet on the market. It would be better to have a solid company that stands behind its products and the customers. I just don't trust them.
It was added by some Congressional staffer who inserted the verbiage just before the vote. It was signed into law. After a major outcry by the artists it was corrected. That ex-Congressional staffer now works for the RIAA making nearly half a million annual salary.
He's pointing out what everyone already knows, and which is in a way a strength of Linux. Linux offers choice. Choice isn't fragmentation. Fragmentation is incompatibility across a seemingly compatible platform. Linux has had varying distros for years, since the beginning. It is no surprise to the Linux market that there's all this competition, which, seemingly the Windows and Mac markets don't truly have (with just one OS variation, with just one office product, with just a single supplier).
The fault in most logic regarding the migration of Linux to the desktop is that it isn't there already. It is. In the US? Probably not, though it has a market. In Europe, yes to some degree. In other parts of the world. Yes, to a larger degree. What isn't being seen is that Linux isn't on a profit/loss motivation. It has the time to grow. There's nothing such as profit AND loss driving it. It can just grow. Steadily. Like a glacier, if need be.
If Google Docs picks up speed then the Linux desktop benefits. Every Linux device benefits. You can use it on Linux just as you can use anything else. And, for the record, IMHO, the cloud won't replace the desktop for at least another generation, if at all. Certainly data will become more internet integrated though it will lack the security of a stand-alone desktop. Microsoft will NEVER create a new product that has the penetration of their two current monopolies. They must rely on what they have. That's a deal-ender, as they are profit/loss driven.
As far as Linux goes, well, it is a part of every Android device, every one of them. As it grows Linux grows. As people use it and understand that it is not Windows they will understand that they have a choice other than Windows on the desktop. This hasn't gone unnoticed by the Linux community. As each Android device is accepted the community clarifies for everyone that Linux is the elder brother of Android. Accepting other than Microsoft and Apple is a big deal. Huge, in fact. People just haven't brought that concept to the forefront of their mind, yet.
Let's move on and realize that there are going to be a million would-be pundits professing prophecy some without the true innocent motivation of a true prophet.
Imagine the police raiding this and breaking down the door expecting to seize millions in copyrighted material only to find a sole PS3, a computer or two, some DVDs and flash cards. I'm sure the police would be standing there looking at one another asking "Is this for real?".
That's what happens when private enterprise manipulates lawmakers, the laws, and law enforcement.
Search is being leveraged to exclude others by Google giving away Android? What are you on? What does Google's search and ad businesses have to do with Android being given away for free?
Are you saying that they can't use their revenue stream from one to fund the others?
You cannot lend any credence to Thurott, he's a long time microsoft shill. He's also a proprietard that believes there is no room for free. That in and of itself is an indication of his fanboism.
Offering free in exchange for some other remuneration is at the heart of barter.
Microsoft's trial and subsequent conviction had little to do with free and everything to do with other practices stemming from favorable pricing policy that excluded competition from entering the market. It went like this: if you include other products besides ours you will lose your special pricing, which would in effect place their product out of reach of the consumer. If they sold a computer without their OS then they'd charged for a sale anyway.
It had nothing to do with free rather it was due to exclusionary practices. By then Netscape was free too
I didn't reply right away after reading various posts here and elsewhere. I know about double speak. An example would be where someone asked if such and such a service would allow tethering. The reply was non-responsive, in that they claimed that they were working to make their products better. Anyone knowing what tethering is and the resistance to it by the industry knows their response was totally non-responsive.
This lead me to think about Microsoft's response. It was also non-responsive. They may have released an email indicating that Google had turned them down for a joint venture. But as I thought about it, being in Google's position, considering their current bid, considering the state of attacks on Linux and Android by Microsoft (and others), I too would have turned down the offer, even without offering Microsoft much insight into why I did.
This kept me thinking that if Google did turn them down without offering a reason then knowing their history I would judge that maybe, just maybe there were other factors that would lead me to that decision and it may have been based on Microsoft's own pattern of behavior and their history of anti-competitive behaviors.
I would have also concluded, when the announcement was made, that a consortium had bid, one that was historically anti-Google, that Microsoft and their partners had something else in mind behind the joint venture. Considering the timing of these things, and considering that others (and myself) might never have felt that Oracle and Apple would join forces with Microsoft, that their actions were in unison for some other purpose other than protecting their own behinds.
So, to me, I have no fear that Google is correct in their announcement, and their claim about Microsoft. I would tend to feel that Microsoft's response is quite non-responsive and disingenuous.
There are problems with standardizing car parts. It means no innovation. That leads to stagnation in car design. That leads to staid inefficiencies. It also leads to monopolies and higher prices.
Slashdot Mirror
Not correct. Most of the MBR infections seem to be on Win7 64bit.
These programs set themselves up before anyone notices and we have little opportunity to react by modifying the bios from the default.
These programs will also write virtual file (system) that is encrypted and hence the malware can't scan it to find and remove the viruses.
What they are also missing in their explanation of the increase is that these malware guys are doing far more than just modifying that portion of the drive. They will erase all your "all programs" folder contents and hide all your personal files and modify the registry and other permissions making it very difficult to recover from even when you discover they are there and try a removal procedure.
What Symantec also didn't explain was that it takes a lot of work to rid the computer of these viruses and that the average antivirus tools are highly unsuccessful at the removal. None of the antivirus software tries to correct the problems created even if they can get rid of the virus. I know some anti-malware apps try to reset some registry keys to default, but that's not what I'm talking about.
You can really screw things up unless you know what you are doing. Even Microsoft has thrown their arms up at times giving up with the directive that you should erase first in some cases because you just can't be sure you got rid of the malware.
Of course this emboldens the malware authors because it tells them that they are headed in the right direction or are already successful. Hell, if you can get the biggest software company in the world to give up then you win.
Citation needed showing the demand for a citation for every post.
Nimble minds grasp concepts better than those obfuscating with citation demands.
Let's not be morons. Of course they do. How much do you think Google is worth? How do you think they came into being? They created a business plan and followed through.
Google eats your citation with a thought.
So, we have a pundit writing for a news rag that is assuming that Google doesn't know how to make up a business plan for their purchase of Motorola? And Motorola is going to be folded into Google? Nope. It will remain on its own.
Google knows what it is doing and certainly they know how to make a business plan. That's like telling a billionaire that he doesn't know how to make money.
I said no such thing. My post spoke directly to the parent. His claim, as i pointed out, applies to all android devices, hence his failure to make a valid point.
No one even remotely debunked it. Shipments ultimately result in sales. All companies count shipments. Every one in every market for every product. Android isn't failing to meet consumer demands nor needs. The HP Touchpad maybe is a failure but there is absolutely no evidence android fails in any measure.
Eh? At one time only ipads were being sold. Even if some minor niche device other than ipad was being sold ipad was the market. That means virtually every android device takes something away. So every sale of an android device is a loss of some portion of Apple's market.
The issues with android have little to do with viability and everything to do with the failures internally of the manufacturing companies. Android is a solid technology its only the slowness to market that allowed one company to become dominate. This won't last long. Apple has closed technologies with a defective philosophy. Just as android phones vastly outsell ios phones android tablets will outsell all the others.
Those are not android tablets.
Insofar as a product that doesn't exist can be considered in third place.
Nope. It phones home with identifying info regularly.. And their systems have been collecting wifi and cellular data for a long time. You can read about their exploits in the recent news.
This has little to do with tablets. Your comments apply to android phones, as the majority of sales are to phone users.
Because only 1% of all apps are any good. The rest are just there. There are only a few categories of usefulness. With a walled garden you suffer this more. Android would have fewer apps but its' open nature allows innovation outside the box. It allows for more complete and useful apps. A closed garden where the warden disallows based on arbitrary criteria kills like a parasite. In other words you can't duplicate features so your whole app is outright denied, even if that duplication is superior to those grown by the warden.
Total bullshit.
More likely they can't express how much, in words, that they like them, even for sales reps.
You have no clue how easy it is to show what you are doing to someone watching on one, nor how bad it used to be to drag around a huge laptop while trying to find a spot to set the boat anchor down just to demo something.
And tablets are very fast. They are also buggy, every one, but still highly useable.
Tablets are too expensive.
That should explain why, for the most part. People don't know that they exist. If it wasn't for sites like slashdot I'd not know either.
Ask those around you about why they have not chosen to buy one.
I own two tablets. I use them every day. But I search for other things to do with them. The software just isn't there. Lack of software and high costs are the major stumbling blocks to adoption.
A buddy bought one shortly after I did. Turns out he bought one for his wife also.
Word gets around.
Android tablets have taken twenty percent of the market from Apple. That is not sluggish. Android phones are being activated at over 600,000 a day. Microsoft makes more on extortion from companies that create android devices than they do on their own phone/tablet sales.
Windows 8 has far too many consumer hostile drm features. Let's not forget that upgrading to Windows 8 is not necessary, and vendors have been veering away from Microsoft's offerings for tablets. Both Apple and Google are many times the senior of Microsoft which has no realistic technology in today's market.
Smart phones are common-place. You can even buy a pre-paid Motorola Triumph ($300 for the phone and for $35.00 the pre-paid plan gives you unlimited text and data). All in all, you can save, over a two year period, nearly $1800. Even if you choose a more expensive plan, say $45.00 for 1200 minutes and unlimited text/data, you still save considerably.
Those that don't want to go this route and have a smart phone can use a chat program (e-buddy is free, there are several others) or Google Voice to deliver text messages and to have conversations.
Is AT&T so desperate that they need to make money this way or are they so powerful and influential that they need not fear competition?
These aren't products till they are out the door. This is just advertising for them. Customer OS--Not a good idea. Runs Android Apps. Good. Better screen resolution. Good. Fusion Garage? Not so sure. It took them forever to release the one product they had and then they dumped it and their customers. Big sting with a lot of pain. Now they want you to buy such expensive models? Cut them down to $299 (for wifi) to $399 (for 3g) and they might have a chance. Most Android tablets are way over priced. They all need to come down significantly.
I like the idea of another Android tablet on the market. It would be better to have a solid company that stands behind its products and the customers. I just don't trust them.
It was added by some Congressional staffer who inserted the verbiage just before the vote. It was signed into law. After a major outcry by the artists it was corrected. That ex-Congressional staffer now works for the RIAA making nearly half a million annual salary.
So, some seemingly random guy waxes prophetical?
He's pointing out what everyone already knows, and which is in a way a strength of Linux. Linux offers choice. Choice isn't fragmentation. Fragmentation is incompatibility across a seemingly compatible platform. Linux has had varying distros for years, since the beginning. It is no surprise to the Linux market that there's all this competition, which, seemingly the Windows and Mac markets don't truly have (with just one OS variation, with just one office product, with just a single supplier).
The fault in most logic regarding the migration of Linux to the desktop is that it isn't there already. It is. In the US? Probably not, though it has a market. In Europe, yes to some degree. In other parts of the world. Yes, to a larger degree. What isn't being seen is that Linux isn't on a profit/loss motivation. It has the time to grow. There's nothing such as profit AND loss driving it. It can just grow. Steadily. Like a glacier, if need be.
If Google Docs picks up speed then the Linux desktop benefits. Every Linux device benefits. You can use it on Linux just as you can use anything else. And, for the record, IMHO, the cloud won't replace the desktop for at least another generation, if at all. Certainly data will become more internet integrated though it will lack the security of a stand-alone desktop. Microsoft will NEVER create a new product that has the penetration of their two current monopolies. They must rely on what they have. That's a deal-ender, as they are profit/loss driven.
As far as Linux goes, well, it is a part of every Android device, every one of them. As it grows Linux grows. As people use it and understand that it is not Windows they will understand that they have a choice other than Windows on the desktop. This hasn't gone unnoticed by the Linux community. As each Android device is accepted the community clarifies for everyone that Linux is the elder brother of Android. Accepting other than Microsoft and Apple is a big deal. Huge, in fact. People just haven't brought that concept to the forefront of their mind, yet.
Let's move on and realize that there are going to be a million would-be pundits professing prophecy some without the true innocent motivation of a true prophet.
Imagine the police raiding this and breaking down the door expecting to seize millions in copyrighted material only to find a sole PS3, a computer or two, some DVDs and flash cards. I'm sure the police would be standing there looking at one another asking "Is this for real?".
That's what happens when private enterprise manipulates lawmakers, the laws, and law enforcement.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/technology/google-responds-to-microsofts-gotcha-theyre-diverting-attention-with-a-trick-that-failed/2011/08/04/gIQA9UNjuI_story.html
Demonstrates my sentiments precisely, further showing that no one should trust Microsft.
Search is being leveraged to exclude others by Google giving away Android? What are you on? What does Google's search and ad businesses have to do with Android being given away for free?
Are you saying that they can't use their revenue stream from one to fund the others?
Android is linux.
You cannot lend any credence to Thurott, he's a long time microsoft shill. He's also a proprietard that believes there is no room for free. That in and of itself is an indication of his fanboism.
Offering free in exchange for some other remuneration is at the heart of barter.
Microsoft's trial and subsequent conviction had little to do with free and everything to do with other practices stemming from favorable pricing policy that excluded competition from entering the market. It went like this: if you include other products besides ours you will lose your special pricing, which would in effect place their product out of reach of the consumer. If they sold a computer without their OS then they'd charged for a sale anyway.
It had nothing to do with free rather it was due to exclusionary practices. By then Netscape was free too
I didn't reply right away after reading various posts here and elsewhere. I know about double speak. An example would be where someone asked if such and such a service would allow tethering. The reply was non-responsive, in that they claimed that they were working to make their products better. Anyone knowing what tethering is and the resistance to it by the industry knows their response was totally non-responsive.
This lead me to think about Microsoft's response. It was also non-responsive. They may have released an email indicating that Google had turned them down for a joint venture. But as I thought about it, being in Google's position, considering their current bid, considering the state of attacks on Linux and Android by Microsoft (and others), I too would have turned down the offer, even without offering Microsoft much insight into why I did.
This kept me thinking that if Google did turn them down without offering a reason then knowing their history I would judge that maybe, just maybe there were other factors that would lead me to that decision and it may have been based on Microsoft's own pattern of behavior and their history of anti-competitive behaviors.
I would have also concluded, when the announcement was made, that a consortium had bid, one that was historically anti-Google, that Microsoft and their partners had something else in mind behind the joint venture. Considering the timing of these things, and considering that others (and myself) might never have felt that Oracle and Apple would join forces with Microsoft, that their actions were in unison for some other purpose other than protecting their own behinds.
So, to me, I have no fear that Google is correct in their announcement, and their claim about Microsoft. I would tend to feel that Microsoft's response is quite non-responsive and disingenuous.
There are problems with standardizing car parts. It means no innovation. That leads to stagnation in car design. That leads to staid inefficiencies. It also leads to monopolies and higher prices.