JPF Home Page Forums General Messages General Message Forum Need serious help.

While on my computer yesterday, this window open saying "upgrade your AVG anti virus 2012". So having not up graded for a while, I decided to do so. It was 56MB so I knew on dialup it was going to take a while,but I didn't know it would be about eight hours. When it finally downloaded, I tried to put it on my computer when this warning comes up from Microsoft saying this was not compatible with my computer. So I could not load it. In the meantime I've lost what protection I had. How do you reverse your computer to 24 or 48 hours earlier so as to put every thing back to the way it was. I know there is a way to do it because I was shown how to do it before and it worked, but I've forgotten how to do it. I don't like having no virus protection but I don't want to download AVG again because it took so long. It looks like they are trying to get away from the free protection and make you pay.

On my computer you click on Start, all programs, go to Accesories, click on system tools, and click on system restore. If you have system restore discs try the one that when you put it in it restores all original software but doesn't delete any extra programs you have installed. Yikes!

what Ray said

Tom

Thanks Ray,seems to be working. I'm filing this away so I'll have it for the next time, if I can remember where I filed it.LOL

another way that I do often with AVG is to uninstall it then I download the latest free one from AVG and normally I get the latest version for whatever OS I am using.

Just a thought if restore fails

God Bless Roy and Helen

Everett, if your computer was compatible with AVG as far back as AVG 8.5 it will be good to go with 2012, according to AVG, so the Microsoft message is probably trying to stop you from installing something other than a Micrsoft anti virus program.

AVG, if you are using the paid for version, recommends using their online installer. It is under 4MB but the install would take a long time. The free version is also just under 4MB.

It so happens that Windows Defender is actually a pretty good protection scheme and, from all reports, and past experience with it, was not the normal Microsoft experience.

Did this all work??

we love the Earthlink antivirus software. works terrific and is downloadable. if that is relevant at all.

My service shop said the microsoft one was one of the best now but was not always the case. So that is the one I am using now.

The microsoft windows protection system you refer to is OK for a freebie BUT not the best and certainly not foolproof....it still will let in a trojan or worm or two and has little defence against spyware.
AVG is rated by most independent sources to be the best for freebie/cheap systems.
The new Norton is probably one of the best premium protection systems according to the specialists....and is their preferred option for windows 7 scoring best in independant tests.

I have AVG. I will not use Windows Defender again. Last time I downloaded it it came with a virus (found out later it was a disgruntled Microsoft programmer that did that and a lot of folks' computers got ruined). Norton and McAfee use way too much hard drive space, and have a funny idea of what "something wrong with your computer" is (like, if they decide they want more money). A pox on all their houses.

Joe

I was told that Apple computers never get a virus.Is this true?

No, not true but a much smaller number of them. Even fewer for Linux and other operating systems.
It's a matter of numbers Everett, for the most part though running as root/administrator as Microsoft users did for years also made it easier to become infected. There just aren't enough users out there to make it worth the spammer's and virus planter's efforts. As the number of non Microsoft users increases so will the instances virus infections.

Windows 7 + with all updates and service pack + Google Chrome is pretty mean competition for an OSX Lion machine + Safari. I talk to people about computers all the time, and it seems that nobody that uses Google Chrome gets a virus, ever...as it's told Google offered $20,000 to anyone who could exploit Google Chrome around the beginning of the year. Far as I know, nobody was able to breach the system. Everybody I know that uses Windows XP and Internet Explorer always calls me, telling me they have a virus. Internet Explorer = Not Good. Windows 7 is pretty safe...as is Google Chrome. Even safer than Firefox. I haven't experienced any viruses or anything like that since I have been running 7 or Chrome. I feel as safe on my PC Desktop as I do my Macbook. Get Chrome.

Mac's may get viruses, or supposedly it's possible...but I have never seen a Mac with a virus, and wouldn't even know what it would even look like, or how it would make the system react, and I use different mac's in alot of different studios all the time. In general Mac's are considered safer.

I've never heard of Google Chrome,new one on me. I'm on dialup so I don't be on line 24 hours a day, I don't know if that lowers my chance of picking up viruses or not. I've only had to take my PC in to the shop twice because of a virus.

Well Everett, the good news is, if you're not on line you can't get infected.

I've had Norton for years and never had a virus problem
Vic

Not strictly true....you can get viruses from any file from other sources like external hard drives or usb sticks etc that you connect your pc to....that is why all of these are scanned and checked by any good protection program first before the pc imports the file....

It may well be a matter of symantics but once you've downloaded the infected file you are, in effect, already infected.

Dak that is true and why it is so important to quarantine the infected file before it can do any damage. The first step is to get decent protection...then you must take all precautions to avoid any infections getting in just in case they slip through the net.....the ususal things like not opening emails from strangers or opening untrusted files or downloads.

I have a different method on viruses. If there's a virus, I get what I need off of the computer, and do a clean install of the operating system. I don't even fiddle around with quarantining files and all that stuff. Computers are never the same after an attack.

For me it is...TWO YEARS,,,Not a one. Nothing. No slow downs, no virus programs even to have on it. Firefox is the only thing I have that is of some sort of protection from pop ups! That is my only concern, and having a computer that actually works like a computer. It's 21st technology, not early 1980's as Windows still is.

Steve Jobs was praised for the genius inventor he was for what?
Not a brand PC or windows, that's for sure.

The whole system of how Macs work is so different than Windows, that spammers who even want to do stuff to them can't like can easily do with the fragile PC system.

Night and day, in many regards.

But so is dial-up compared to high speed,,,so you also may not need a Mac. Not everyone gets to drive a Mercedes or needs to.
But for only the few "hundred" more it was for a Mac,,,,why drive the junker?

Be like still using an outhouse, for the cost of a bathroom is not in the budget. Make it be in the budget!

Johnny your defence of Macs is admirable if a trifle one sided.
I thought I would put a more balanced case forward.....this link might help explode many of the myths that macs are somehow better than PCs of which you speak.
http://www.hongkiat.com/blog/mac-vs-pc-myth-busting-consumer-guide/
Macs are generally twice the price of a similar or greater spec PC. They also cost several times more to repair and contrary to popular belief break down just as often....they use similar parts to a PC but due to their old fashioned operating system and insular design are not as compatable with other hardware as a PC. Macs have approx 5% share of the market whilst windows has 0ver 91%....many programs do not have a mac compatable version. Whilst Macs probably do have a "safer" history...this is down to the statistical percentages rather than a superior design......with less than 5% of the market it stands to reason that most of the attention is spent on windows systems. That said Windows 7 has a pretty good track record re computer security compared to previous versions.
There has been a lot of snobbery re macs and I suspect that a lot of Mac users are carried along with this thinking that they are superior......
Now my son was showing off his new trainers......he asked me what I though of them.....they looked OK to me.....they cost £159....I showed him mine that cost £19.99......apart from the label no difference. He thought he was pretty smart buying an expensive pair of sneakers...I thought he was pretty dumb wasting his money on a status symbol and a label that meant nothing to me....they both did the same job and would wear out in the same time.....and I was less likely to get mugged by someone who wanted my expensive trainers.

I happen to have had 0 (zero) virus issues with my computers that are runninng some version of Linux, primarily PCLOS and a Puppy derivitive. I've been using Linux for better than five years on any computer that hits the internet on any kind of regular basis. I do have one WinXP PC for recording that hits the 'net for the constant updates.
Any hardware issues are easily and inexpensively taken care of because, unlike a Mac, the parts are not proprietary and if the problem happened to be something I could not handle the repair costs are much less than for a Mac.

I also have a good number of friends who run Macs and the problems they run into updating/upgrading their systems is a real eye opener and no better than Windows OS upgrades ending up with incompatibility issues with current programs as well as system borks.

Johnny, your comparison of a Mac to a luxury car is correct in one aspect. While it may be smoother operating when it's new it's going to cost you an arm and a leg once it's out of warranty and needs repairs.

The market share of pc computers is way higher because of the price, and probably will be for a long time. Cheaper computers are not necessarily better or "just as good" because more people use them. Not everybody needs the power of a mac. In the case of creative professionals, graphic designers, video editors, studios, the choice of Mac computers is valid. They do in fact operate better under these circumstances. For surfing the internet, playing games, watching youtube, twittering/facebooking and any less labor intensive activities any computer will do, and most people don't use computers for much more than that. I don't think Mac's are better for everybody. Mac's are stupid expensive to have repaired, and it's really hard to do it yourself. They make it hard purposely. With my old pc laptop that I bought new, I replaced a broken screen, 4 batteries, 3 power supplies, a hard drive, and the keyboard, all with little effort and funds. All that maybe cost me $350 total. If the superdrive went out in my Macbook, I'm sure it would cost me at least that to have it repaired. The lack of Mac software is what kept me from switching for years. These days, it's not as big of a deal, as most software you really need either has a mac version, or a just as good, or better alternative. Every major film studio and recording studio doesn't use macs because they're cool, look pretty, or they think they are a status symbol. They use them because no other computer manufacturer makes a product that can meet the needs required. In the same way a Behringer compressor isn't gonna sound as good as an 1176. Do more people have the Behringer? Yes. Does it compress audio and function similar? Yes. Does it to it with the sound and class of an 1176? of course not. It's more expensive for a reason. It's not always silly for people to gravitate towards spending money on a product that is better, or even marginally better. I use Mac's and PC's daily, and I actually know alot more about PC's. I'm not saying you can't edit video, record, or design with a pc. You can, and it works fine...you just get a little more out of a Mac, and for those that need them, they woudn't use anything else. I record at home on a PC, and pretty much always have. But I use a Mac Pro up at the office, and I get alot more power. Windows 7 to me is certainly the best operating system Windows has had...although I had a pretty great recording system many years ago with Windows 98 sp2. I totally agree there is Mac snobbery. I personally have always been in the middle between both. But Mac's are the standard for the applications I mentioned. Nothing sucks more than just needing a couple more plugins and the computer bottoming out. PC's can get maxed often times before you are finished working on something. This happens less on PC's. Also, Mac's are less prone to crashing, therefore more productive. They do crash, just not as much. I will be buying the first computer ever that is immune to crashes. It's very hard to compare mac and pc computers based on specifications because they are not the same and they can use the same hardware, but in different ways because of the os. So just because they both might have an i5 processor and the same amount of ram, doesn't make them the same. A Mac with an Intel Duo Core is more efficient than a pc with the same specs.

Well put points but totally wrong......some of these points just might have been true a decade or so ago but not now......the power of the mac was reached and beaten by high spec PCs and laptops years ago. What makes you think that a Mac using the same processor and basic parts as a PC will be faster or more powerful?
http://www.kaycircle.com/Are-Macs-more-powerful/faster-than-PCs
OK it has a slightly different operating system but is in no way better in fact it is probably not best for anything......given that so few people have them compared to PCs so less gurus to help out and as stated earlier they have fallen behind a PC with modern specs all that is a distinct disadvantage....but hey use what suits you even if it costs twice the price for a lower spec......One last point most studios I know and everyone serious about music production uses a PC......yes some studios go Mac and some use both but the majority I know use Windows.......simply cause most have used PCs and cannot be bothered with another learning curve.
Try comparing specs side by side between a top spec Mac and a top i7 Pc....they do not even come close never mind the huge difference in price.

I've been to probably 50 different commercial recording studios in my life, and I can honestly say that I have never seen one using a Windows PC for tracking a record. Now the differences could be vastly different, seeing as you live 4000 miles away from where I live. But nobody makes records on pc's here. A small production house or something, maybe. But like I said, I've never even seen that. As far as it suiting me, I do have a macbook, and when I work in studios, as I said, I have no choice because that's all there is, unless I wanted to bring my own pc computer. I am much more comfortable on a PC, probably always will be. At the office I use a 12-core Mac Pro, it's new...I couldn't even find a 12 core pc online available to buy. I guess the computer companies can't find a way to make them cheap enough. Maybe one day they will catch up

It is just possible that in USA things are different than here in UK......I have no problem with Macs......in fact Macintosh are to be commended for having such loyal customers....if a bit snobbish.
Mind you like my son and his trainers you probaly have every right to be snobbish seeing how Macs are considered by most Mac users to be a status symbol.....if only they could convince the other 90% of computer users to buy one.....I know loads of folk myself included who could more than afford a Mac or three but as a first choice prefer another brand of computer running Windows for the reasons stated earlier....

Mac are not the only ones offering 12 core.....they just charge double the price than other brands do for the same intel....a simple google will reveal many to choose from.
I am awaiting delivery of a brand new laptop from the States....it is a HP but has been factory upgraded...spec wise it is at worst comparable or better than any Macbook......at less than half the price.

I actually did do a Google Search. Some stuff came up when I typed in 12 core pc...but the 12 was actually 12-gig ram. When I did it in parentheses, all I found was the processors themselves that cost about $1,500 each and some PC that was like $10,000. There were a few custom builds, but no major manufacturers making them yet.

For info Mac do a combi to take up to 12 core and this is also available direct from amd and intel do similar.
http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/forum/288435-10-cores-cores
Pretty irrelevant for all but heavy commercial use.
It costs around £10.000...looking at the spec it is nothing special compared to some custom builds available and certainly not worth that kind of money...the laptop I ordered has better specs albeit a quad core but more gig ram and 1 tera hard drive. It cost a fraction of that price.

Hey Ev,

After all this time, is there STILL nothing available internet wise better than dial up? How about DSL or Sat?

Brian

It seems where we are located we are right on the outer edge of satellite reception,can't even get good cellphone reception. But, according to the news, there is a new satellite just launched that will take care of better reception for people like me,and there are many like me,in remote areas, plus there is suppose to be another satellite launched in 2012 that will pickup any missed by the 2011 satellite. If it don't cost an arm and a leg, I will get on one of them.LOL

Big Jim, I am in your camp RE PC vs Mac


In this day and age, there is little difference in capability, and what differentiates the two really is the buyer. They simply tend to be passionate about Macs, and won't look at a PC


Your comments re viruses are also true. It's simply a matter of numbers, not better security. And anyways, the instances of viruses are way down compared to other forms of invasion, such as phishing and identity theft.


AND Apple is not as smart as everyone thinks. By creating a proprietary platform that they jealously guard, (because Apple is all about the "consumer experience"), they vastly restrict the market for software developers. It's why iPhones will have a small market share in a few years as the Android OS becomes ubiquitous.


Of course "on the other side", Apple has been wildly successful introducing new product categories...which is why they are one of the most valuable companies in the world today. How long will they be able to say this?? Dunno. I suspect for as long as they can innovate as brilliantly as they have with the iPod, iTunes, iPad, iPhone ...

Great points John.....a lot of iStuff is pretty good but a lot of it is just hype and expensive snobbishness...there are better or just as good apps and players etc that are not owned by Apple if you look for them...a lot are free and some do not want a 100% monopoly of the creative processes cause unlike iStuff they work alongside and in conjunction with other makers goods....most iStuff usually only works with other iStuff....I downloaded Itunes onto my laptop now it constantly wants to take over everything by default...if I let it.