Are there any ones which are on all the time? So when I download a file it automatically scans it immediately?--75.187.113.105 (talk) 00:43, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are three major free anti-viruses. They are:

• avast! Home Edition
• Avira AntiVir Free
• AVG Anti-Virus Free Edition

All three have resident/real-time protection against threats (That is, files are scanned upon opening and such). As for your second question, avast! has a Web Shield module which will scan almost everything (Certain content such as music files are excluded by default from Web Shield scanning to prevent slowdowns of your browsing speed) as they stream to your computer (Website content; avast! picks up a lot of malicious JavaScript) or as files download. (It creates a transparent proxy and redirects all web traffic through it to scan it for threats)

In personal tests that I conducted within a sandbox it successfully detected rogues (Fake software that bring along a lot of malware and that try to scan you out of your money) mid-download. With other threats it often detected them before I even got a download prompt! (Temporary files are scanned automatically and the threat(s) was/were detected)

avast! Home Edition (The free version) however lacks PUSH updates (Initiated by the avast! servers rather than by the user), a script scanner (Scans scripts executed on the local computer; more importantly though it scans websites in web browsers for malicious content), command-line scanner (used by those who prefer the efficiency of the command-line and those that wish to execute batch commands), automatic actions to be taken when a threat is detected (In the free version a popup appears with cool [But loud] siren sound effects showing the threat detected and giving the options available. In the Professional version; an action can be set to be taken automatically when a threat is detected), and finally the Enhanced-User Interface. (There are many complaints about the avast! Simple User Interface [I have no problems with it and love it for its simplicity] for looking too much like a media player etc)

However, avast! is the most fully-featured of the free anti-viruses with features such as the Boot-Time Scan (Scans your computer before Windows boots up to kill off threats before they can defend themselves against removal), the Virus Recovery Database (Stores copies of critical system files to allow easy repairs if they get infected), and the Virus Chest. (Same as the "Quarantine" area of most other anti-viruses but avast! allows you to scan files in it [As many times as you want] to check for false positives. In addition, you can add your own files to the chest. -- I recommend avast! but note that it lacks heuristics (Behavior analysis, this is regarded by some as just advertising though that creates too many false positives, making it difficult for the user to determine what is a threat and what isn't)

Avira AntiVir Free is also highly popular like avast! (Which has 75 million registered users+). In tests by independent companies such as AV Comparatives; it had the highest detection rates (But not for rootkits as discovered by other testers) beating out even GDATA which uses the BitDefender and avast! scanning engines for very high detection rates. Avira AntiVir Free though lacks anti-spyware and anti-adware; a major weakness. Like avast! it also prompts you for every threat detected (Can be annoying if you want to clean up a heavily infected machine). It has heuristics. -- I recommend it but be sure to use a good anti-spyware application alongside it and a good HIPS application as well.

Lastly, AVG Anti-Virus Free Edition 8.5. It is probably the most popular of the three.

I know this will cause controversy but I do not recommend it. The 7.5 version of AVG Free was excellent but the 8.x series lost too many features. No anti-rootkit is very bad as rootkits are becoming more common and ever more dangerous and difficult to remove. The reduced priority updates are also bad as AVG has usually had pretty bad detection rates for threats with old signatures. (Other anti-viruses can do rather well with out-of-date signatures but always keep them up-to-date. Even so, a recent study by Panda Labs shows that 35% of infected computers HAD an updated anti-virus. Having an anti-virus alone is not enough.) Its detection rate is describable as decent. If you want an AVG product, get the paid version not the free one.

If you are willing to spend a few bucks: (I suspect not as you asked for recommendations for free anti-viruses)

I most highly recommend the Kaspersky 2009 and Norton 2009 versions. (Yes, I know, "Norton sucks!"; yeah, well, not the 2009 versions, they are light and have demonstrated excellent anti-malware capabilities. However the following is true: "McAfee sucks!" :P)

Hope this helps. :) --Xp54321 ^{(Hello! • Contribs)} 02:54, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. I installed avast and it works great. --75.187.113.105 (talk) 16:25, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Your welcome. --Xp54321 ^{(Hello! • Contribs)} 20:43, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And can Canon [?!] be to blame?

Here's an odd one. Yesterday, a Mac (Intel, 10.5.4) here had no printer attached but -- irrelevantly, I'd have thought -- Firefox, Safari and Opera all worked as expected. This morning, I plugged in a Canon laser printer and installed the necessary ("CAPT") software for this but haven't made any other change to the system that I can think of (and I've thought hard). Safari and Opera work just as they did yesterday. (And the printer works fine.) Firefox, however, now ignores anything I type in the little window at the top for the URL (or in the smaller Google window to its right). No error message, nothing: it's as if I hadn't made the final hit on the Enter key. However, if, still in Mozilla, I click anything within the "history", I can see it and go wherever I want from it by clicking links within it.

I upgraded Firefox from 3.0.6 to 3.0.7. No error message during (or after) installation, no difference after installation: I can go where I've been, and surf therefrom, but I can't specify a new URL or do a Google search.

The obvious solution is to ignore Firefox and use Safari and/or Opera, particularly as they are excellent and already installed. But as long as I don't know WtF's going on with Firefox, I worry that some other function of some other program will mysteriously crap out on me. Ideas? -- Hoary (talk) 04:35, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS I suppose that the scientific method (?) demands that I should experimentally uninstall the printer. But before taking that extreme (not!) measure, I thought I'd ask here. -- Hoary (talk) 05:30, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, that's very strange. There are a list of things to try with Firefox first, most of which are not so difficult. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 18:19, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried restarting the computer and reinstalling Firefox? Mac Davis (talk) 20:26, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried running Firefox in safe mode to check if an extension may be causing the problem, from Terminal run "/Applications/Firefox.app/Contents/MacOS/firefox -safe-mode". I believe old versions of the Delicious Bookmarks addon are known to cause a similar problems, so if you have that upgrade it or uninstall. JSK715 20:27, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This was my main computer but now sits on a shelf unused ;( as I had to get an ancient second-hand XP computer so that I could get broadband. It is an "etower 566cd" and has a 566mhz Intel Celeron Processor and I have installed 512MB of memory (the maximum possible) and a CDRW. It does not have an ethernet card though. It is a better machine that my ancient XP computer which has a pentium III and currently only 126MB of memory, although it does have an ethernet card. The ancient XP computer was upgraded from a lower Windows operating system before I got it, and the motherboard no longer seems supported, and the video card is probably defective too.

The two choices see to be a) Linux or b) upgrading to XP. I hestitate with Linux as my broadband provider does not support it, and I expect there is still far less freeware and other software for it. How much would an XP upgrade cost please? 89.241.151.22 (talk) 10:49, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would cost more than Linux would; clearly, just how much you'd pay would depend on the nation in which you bought it, etc etc. My own broadband provider doesn't mention Linux either; but for all that company cares I could be using Plan 9. You'll find plenty of freeware for Linux, and all in all enough software to keep you busier with the machine than you are now with it. Hoary (talk) 11:29, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You don't mention how you plan to use the computer, but it sounds like you don't have specific, high-end (Windows-specific) applications in mind. For internet browser use, email, word processing, etc, you may find that machine will serve you best running Linux. I'm primarily an XP user, but I use Linux on a couple of older machines because it's so much less resource-intensive and there are excellent free distributions (e.g. Ubuntu ). In the past I did not recommend Linux to any but very sophisticated users, but it's gotten much easier to install and support. Also, Microsoft will end "mainstream" XP support this summer - another reason to consider Linux. --Scray (talk) 15:32, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One additional point: you can try Linux for free, and if you don't like it, switch to XP. You'll want to do a clean install anyway - leave no traces of Millenium! ;-) --Scray (talk) 15:33, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking for a way to remotely save a specified web page, such as a thread on a message board, updating it every 5 mins to ensure all new content is saved and stopping when the html source of the page has the following "<h2>404 - Not Found</h2>" (otherwise it will continue to save the page once the thread has died and the content has gone, saving only the error message). What would be the best way to accomplish this? The system would also need an interface where multiple people via the internet could specify the urls to be saved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cally012 (talk • contribs) 12:45, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, on a Linux or MacOSX box - you could write a shell script to run 'wget' in a loop with a suitable 'sleep' to delay saving. 'wget' grabs a page via HTTP and saves it. Under Windows - I don't know any simple way. You could install the 'Cygwin' suite - which includes the 'bash' shell and the 'wget' program. Stopping when you get a '404' requires a loop and a test of the exit status of wget...so, depending on what in detail you want to do...

while ( wget http://sjbaker.org/wibble.html ) ; do mv wibble.html safe.html ; sleep 300 ; done

This will take a snapshot of that page every 300 seconds - saving the latest version in 'safe.html' and exit automatically when there is an error (such as if page is 'not found'...ie a 404 error).

But Cygwin is probably not the only way to do this - if you are familiar with Windows' god-awful native scripting system and can find a program like 'wget' that grabs pages off the Internet. SteveBaker (talk) 01:44, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is there no online service that does this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cally012 (talk • contribs) 16:24, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are asking for something really rather specialised - it's not something a whole lot of people need (or it would already exist in your browser or something) - so I'd be quite surprised it there was any off-the-shelf way to do this. SteveBaker (talk) 02:54, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I have a very slow laptop (256 Mb RAM, 1.5 GHz Celeron M Processor). I heard about this lightweight operating system, Xubuntu. So, I downloaded it from the official site, wrote the image on a CD. When I tried to install Xubuntu by booting from the CD, I went through a couple of menu and then some Desktop Environment came up and it promply hung there. It didnt even take me through all the process of allocationg space in a partition and everything. I even tried to Install it as an Application from Windows, the installation went well. But, when I tried to get in Xubuntu from the boot menu, it hung up at the desktop sceen. And in the desktop theres an bar of discoloration or a multi-colored bar just aboce the main taskbar on the bottom. Can someone please tell me what went wrong?

Thanks! Jayant,20 Years, India • contribs 14:09, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are there options for "minimal" or similar at boot time? When I was installing a copy of Linux onto a laptop, I HAD to specify that or it would just die. 76.117.247.55 (talk) 00:22, 15 March 2009 (UTC) PS. Anyone know how to view a bootlog on that flavor?[reply]

Nope, there weren't any options at all. I even "checked the CD for defects". But it didnt find any. During installation at boot time, it didnt ask me for any options regarding setting and all, it directly went to the desktop where it subsequently hung without showing me any options. Even when I select to work on a Demo of Xubuntu (Live CD) and install from there, the same thing happens (desktop hangs up). I have installed Linux before but never encountered any problems. This is very irritating as I really need to work on an unix environment for college practicals. Jayant,20 Years, India • contribs 09:41, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you are having trouble using the regular Ubuntu installation CDs (this includes the variants such as Kubuntu, Xubuntu and so on), you can always try using the "alternate" installation CD for the same variant. It isn't quite as easy to install but it will install (and be usable) on a wider range of hardware. Other than that, you may want to try asking on the Ubuntu forums at ubuntuforums.org. Generally speaking, multicolored bars or blocks and other graphics anomalies are usually indicative of an issue with either the graphics card or (normally on really old systems) unsupported resolutions, and since I assume you have no such problems in Windows, my first guess would be that Ubuntu is trying to run at a resolution that your system cannot handle. If that is the problem, the alternate installation CD will help you get around it since it prompts you for the desired screen resolution during installation, and does so in text mode, which any PC supports. Have the laptop's manual available and just tell it to use whatever the screen's designed resolution is, and it should work. --Mkjo (talk) 13:58, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I installed it using the alternate CD.. It went off without a glitch. But Xubuntu is really really slow. Opening windowns and installing packages is taking a very long time. Firefox takes 2 minutes to open! Anyways, Thanks a lot for your replies. Cheers! Jayant,20 Years, India • contribs 20:40, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would someone here explain to me please how I can set up my PC to ALWAYS open new windows in a maximised state? For some inexplicable reason every window I open does so in a minimised state and I can't figure out how to reverse that. Thanks 92.20.139.55 (talk) 15:19, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not on one of my XP computers at the moment, but I think it's in your Folder options, on the advanced tab. — Ched ~ ^(yes?) 18:03, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resize the folder the way you want it, then go Tools -> Folder Options, go to the View tab and click "Apply to All Folders" JSK715 20:02, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A few months ago I hooked up an old laser printer to a new computer and although it worked fine for a while it kept making a very loud beep. After a few weeks it started overprinting within a small area of the page, so I threw it out and bought a brand new printer (Samsung ML 2850D). This prints just fine, but it keeps making the same loud beep when it is switched on and then every minute or so. The only way to stop it is to turn it off. I have been able to find nothing about this problem in the manual or the on-line forums. Any ideas?--Shantavira|^{feed me} 17:00, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does the beep come from the printer itself, or the computer's speakers? Thanks, Genius101^Guestbook 19:07, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, even though the PC is on one side of my desk and the printer on the other, it's surprisingly difficult to tell exactly where the beep comes from. Although the speakers are turned off, I believe the PC has some sort of internal beeper? Anyway I turned the printer on and off a few times trying to get it to beep and it no longer seems to be doing it, despite having been doing it for some weeks......--Shantavira|^{feed me} 19:48, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, most computers can make some annoying beeps internally, and high frequency sounds are notoriously difficult to locate (key finders have this problem). If you have an extra child handy, you might ask them, as they have better high frequency hearing. StuRat (talk) 03:53, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm used to working on a Mac and have, on occasion, pulled the back off and stuck my head inside to replace RAM or a hard drive. But the 'family computer' in the kitchen is a PC. A Dell Dimension 1100, and I've never really poked around with that at all. I'm wanting to fit more RAM in it as it's only got 512mb and was wondering if it's as simple a job as it sounds. Do I just get some thing like this and unscrew the back, pull out the old RAM and slot the new one in? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.111.85.208 (talk) 19:00, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, it easy to upgrade the RAM on a PC. First, however, you must make sure that you buy the right RAM module for your motherboard. After that you only need to push the new modules into their slots on the motherboard. Some cheap no-name computers look very messy inside, with a lot of wiring and small margins, but my experience is that Dell PC's are very easy to work with. Simply push the new module(s) into its/their slot(s). --Andreas Rejbrand (talk) 19:42, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When you bring in new RAM, make sure it is of equal or greater clock speed than your slots allow, and make sure it is the right kind of RAM. For example, if your previous RAM was 266 MHz DDR, make sure your new RAM is DDR and of equal or greater speed. If the RAM is of greater speed but your motherboard can't use it, then it will be downclocked and the RAM will be 266 MHz. Dells are very easy on the inside. Mac Davis (talk) 20:24, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK thanks. When I get in there, should it be written on the RAM what speed it is and if it's DDR?91.111.85.208 (talk) 23:28, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It might be easier for you to Google the motherboard to get its specs; the RAM itself will definitely tell you its capacity and whether it is DDR/DDR2/DDR3, but I doubt it would list the clockspeed. Useight (talk) 00:37, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am somewhat alittle computer illiterate,and thats why I have someone else building me a computer . I rec.'d an E-mail from this person last night , stating that I would'nt be able to burn a dvd nor a cd without first installing a graphics card ...((I havent made my mind up as to how much I want to spend on a graphics card yet)) I was under the impression that a graphics card ONLY has to do with replaying the graphics , by which , the onboard graphics of replay could be handled by the mother boards graphics for that.. Is he right in telling me I need to FIRST , install a graphics card to be able to burn DVD's or CD's? Like I said befor, I thought it was the software , not the graphics card, that you use to burn with.. It has a new DVD/CD burner in it(just installed)..Thanks ahead of time for your help, it is all deeply appreciated.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.28.42.61 (talk) 19:01, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You do not need any particular graphics card in order to burn a optical disc (CD, DVD, Blue-ray disc etc.). (Of course you need some (very simple, perhaps on-board) graphics processing just to start Windows, but that's obvious.) However, if you for instance want to edit the movie clips on a DVD or Blue-ray, then, depending on your software, a good graphics card might be valuable. --Andreas Rejbrand (talk) 19:34, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I presume you're using the on-board graphics processor on the mother-board? If so - then this guy is telling you lies...probably in an effort to get you to buy a graphics card from him rather than going elsewhere. If you LITERALLY have no graphics output - then Windows won't boot and you'll have a hard time doing anything! However, even with no graphics of any description - you could still boot Linux - log into the machine remotely via the network (assuming it's set up to allow that) and burn CD's and DVD's without problems. SteveBaker (talk) 01:09, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]