Antivirus, antispyware

On Fri, 10 Dec 2010 13:05:49 -0700, XS11E wrote:

Stan Brown wrote:

From the MS Web site it looks like MSE is supposed to be an
all-in- one solution for viruses and spyware. Do you agree, or do
you use an additional program for one of those?

I also use MalwareBytes, I don't think I need it but it's a habit and
an unbreakable one like grabbing the last donut even if I'm not
hungry....

So it was *you*!

--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)

On Fri, 10 Dec 2010 14:01:44 +0100, Alias wrote:

On 12/10/2010 12:21 PM, Stan Brown wrote:
On Thu, 9 Dec 2010 11:07:24 -0500, Jeff wrote:

?"Stan Brown" wrote in message
...

I fear this will touch off a religious war, so maybe people might
want to email answers rather than posting, and I can post a summary.
Up to you, of course.

My laptop came with a six-month subscription to Webroot, which will
be expiring in a few days. On my XP machine I had Avast and was
quite happy with it, plus occasional scans with Malwarebytes. I
can't see any reason to pay for Webroot when good free alternatives
are available.

Anyone want to share what antimalware software you use, and why you
chose it?

---------------------------

I use ComodoIS internet suite along with Malwarebytes. I find that the
integrated Sandbox, firewall, and antivirus works perfectly together and has
kept many nasties off my PC in the past. I can't believe they give it all
away for free.

Jeff, thanks for responding, but PLEASE quote in the standard way.
Doing it the way you do, it's difficult to impossible to follow who
said what in follow-ups.


He has no choice. He's using the new version of Microsoft's Windows Live
Mail.

He has a choice. Other SW.

--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)

On Fri, 10 Dec 2010 15:37:50 +0100, Alias wrote:

On 12/10/2010 03:32 PM, Brian Cryer wrote:
"Alias" wrote in message
...
On 12/10/2010 12:52 PM, Brian Cryer wrote:
"ray" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 09 Dec 2010 03:02:35 -0500, Stan Brown wrote:

I fear this will touch off a religious war, so maybe people might want
to email answers rather than posting, and I can post a summary. Up to
you, of course.

My laptop came with a six-month subscription to Webroot, which will be
expiring in a few days. On my XP machine I had Avast and was quite
happy with it, plus occasional scans with Malwarebytes. I can't see
any
reason to pay for Webroot when good free alternatives are available.

Anyone want to share what antimalware software you use, and why you
chose it?

I don't use any - but then I don't need to - I use Linux.

There are a number of common misconceptions about Linux, one of the
popular ones is that Linux is immune to viruses.

Not a misconception but the truth.

Certainly the design is
much much better in that regard than Windows, but whilst it is much less
succeptible it is not immune.

Sorry, but it is a misconception. Linux's security model means its
mostly true, but not 100%.
You might like to read this as a starter:
http://www.neowin.net/news/a-history...ruses-on-linux

There aren't any viruses actively in the wild. All the ones you listed
have had patches that make them ineffective. Unlike Windows, Linux
patches security vulnerabilities much quicker. Also, if you stick to the
repositories and don't download crap from some web site on the Internet,
there is NO possibility of being compromised unless you physically hand
your computer over to a hacker (or someone who knows how to bypass your
password).


What is certainly true is that the security model of Linux is so much
better than with Windows that you can feasibly list all the Linux
viruses and variants, which would be somewhat difficult for Windows!

You'd need a lot of web pages.

Actually, it could be done on one web page...if it's long enough.

--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)

Do you think maybe I should uninstall on two and use something else?

Ed



I've been using it on 25 workstations for 3 years. Sorry if I'm breaking
a law?


--

www.myconeyislandmemories.com

On 12/11/2010 12:51 AM, Gene E. Bloch wrote:
On Fri, 10 Dec 2010 14:01:44 +0100, Alias wrote:

On 12/10/2010 12:21 PM, Stan Brown wrote:
On Thu, 9 Dec 2010 11:07:24 -0500, Jeff wrote:

?"Stan Brown" wrote in message
...

I fear this will touch off a religious war, so maybe people might
want to email answers rather than posting, and I can post a summary.
Up to you, of course.

My laptop came with a six-month subscription to Webroot, which will
be expiring in a few days. On my XP machine I had Avast and was
quite happy with it, plus occasional scans with Malwarebytes. I
can't see any reason to pay for Webroot when good free alternatives
are available.

Anyone want to share what antimalware software you use, and why you
chose it?

---------------------------

I use ComodoIS internet suite along with Malwarebytes. I find that the
integrated Sandbox, firewall, and antivirus works perfectly together and has
kept many nasties off my PC in the past. I can't believe they give it all
away for free.

Jeff, thanks for responding, but PLEASE quote in the standard way.
Doing it the way you do, it's difficult to impossible to follow who
said what in follow-ups.


He has no choice. He's using the new version of Microsoft's Windows Live
Mail.

He has a choice. Other SW.


He has no choice if he uses WLM.

--
Alias

On 12/11/2010 12:53 AM, Gene E. Bloch wrote:
On Fri, 10 Dec 2010 15:37:50 +0100, Alias wrote:

On 12/10/2010 03:32 PM, Brian Cryer wrote:
wrote in message
...
On 12/10/2010 12:52 PM, Brian Cryer wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Thu, 09 Dec 2010 03:02:35 -0500, Stan Brown wrote:

I fear this will touch off a religious war, so maybe people might want
to email answers rather than posting, and I can post a summary. Up to
you, of course.

My laptop came with a six-month subscription to Webroot, which will be
expiring in a few days. On my XP machine I had Avast and was quite
happy with it, plus occasional scans with Malwarebytes. I can't see
any
reason to pay for Webroot when good free alternatives are available.

Anyone want to share what antimalware software you use, and why you
chose it?

I don't use any - but then I don't need to - I use Linux.

There are a number of common misconceptions about Linux, one of the
popular ones is that Linux is immune to viruses.

Not a misconception but the truth.

Certainly the design is
much much better in that regard than Windows, but whilst it is much less
succeptible it is not immune.

Sorry, but it is a misconception. Linux's security model means its
mostly true, but not 100%.
You might like to read this as a starter:
http://www.neowin.net/news/a-history...ruses-on-linux

There aren't any viruses actively in the wild. All the ones you listed
have had patches that make them ineffective. Unlike Windows, Linux
patches security vulnerabilities much quicker. Also, if you stick to the
repositories and don't download crap from some web site on the Internet,
there is NO possibility of being compromised unless you physically hand
your computer over to a hacker (or someone who knows how to bypass your
password).


What is certainly true is that the security model of Linux is so much
better than with Windows that you can feasibly list all the Linux
viruses and variants, which would be somewhat difficult for Windows!

You'd need a lot of web pages.

Actually, it could be done on one web page...if it's long enough.


Nit picker.

--
Alias

On 12/10/10 5:51 PM, Gene E. Bloch wrote:
On Fri, 10 Dec 2010 14:01:44 +0100, Alias wrote:

On 12/10/2010 12:21 PM, Stan Brown wrote:
On Thu, 9 Dec 2010 11:07:24 -0500, Jeff wrote:
?"Stan Brown" wrote in message
...

I fear this will touch off a religious war, so maybe people might
want to email answers rather than posting, and I can post a summary.
Up to you, of course.

My laptop came with a six-month subscription to Webroot, which will
be expiring in a few days. On my XP machine I had Avast and was
quite happy with it, plus occasional scans with Malwarebytes. I
can't see any reason to pay for Webroot when good free alternatives
are available.

Anyone want to share what antimalware software you use, and why you
chose it?

---------------------------

I use ComodoIS internet suite along with Malwarebytes. I find that the
integrated Sandbox, firewall, and antivirus works perfectly together and has
kept many nasties off my PC in the past. I can't believe they give it all
away for free.
Jeff, thanks for responding, but PLEASE quote in the standard way.
Doing it the way you do, it's difficult to impossible to follow who
said what in follow-ups.

He has no choice. He's using the new version of Microsoft's Windows Live
Mail.

He has a choice. Other SW.

Or manually fixing what Windows Live Mail screwed up... :-)


--

Roy Smith
Windows 7 Professional
Postbox 2.1.0
Saturday, December 11, 2010 6:58:22 AM

On 12/10/10 9:42 AM, ray wrote:
On Fri, 10 Dec 2010 11:52:18 +0000, Brian Cryer wrote:

"ray" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 09 Dec 2010 03:02:35 -0500, Stan Brown wrote:

I fear this will touch off a religious war, so maybe people might want
to email answers rather than posting, and I can post a summary. Up to
you, of course.

My laptop came with a six-month subscription to Webroot, which will be
expiring in a few days. On my XP machine I had Avast and was quite
happy with it, plus occasional scans with Malwarebytes. I can't see
any reason to pay for Webroot when good free alternatives are
available.

Anyone want to share what antimalware software you use, and why you
chose it?
I don't use any - but then I don't need to - I use Linux.
There are a number of common misconceptions about Linux, one of the
popular ones is that Linux is immune to viruses. Certainly the design is
much much better in that regard than Windows, but whilst it is much less
succeptible it is not immune.

AVG does a free (personal use) edition for Linux, perhaps you should use
it.

If I thought there was any perceptable danger, I would. Yes, it is
theoretically possible to distribute a virus to attack Linux computers -
I've yet to see one.

Perhaps one of the biggest reason why viruses and malicious software are
not as much of a problem as it is with a Windows PC is because of effort
vs results. Now if the number of Linux and Windows systems in use were
reversed, then I wouldn't be surprised to see that Linus systems had
more viruses and malware that a Windows system.


--

Roy Smith
Windows 7 Professional
Postbox 2.1.0
Saturday, December 11, 2010 7:14:29 AM

On 12/11/2010 02:14 PM, Roy Smith wrote:
On 12/10/10 9:42 AM, ray wrote:
On Fri, 10 Dec 2010 11:52:18 +0000, Brian Cryer wrote:

wrote in message
...
On Thu, 09 Dec 2010 03:02:35 -0500, Stan Brown wrote:

I fear this will touch off a religious war, so maybe people might want
to email answers rather than posting, and I can post a summary. Up to
you, of course.

My laptop came with a six-month subscription to Webroot, which will be
expiring in a few days. On my XP machine I had Avast and was quite
happy with it, plus occasional scans with Malwarebytes. I can't see
any reason to pay for Webroot when good free alternatives are
available.

Anyone want to share what antimalware software you use, and why you
chose it?
I don't use any - but then I don't need to - I use Linux.
There are a number of common misconceptions about Linux, one of the
popular ones is that Linux is immune to viruses. Certainly the design is
much much better in that regard than Windows, but whilst it is much less
succeptible it is not immune.

AVG does a free (personal use) edition for Linux, perhaps you should use
it.

If I thought there was any perceptable danger, I would. Yes, it is
theoretically possible to distribute a virus to attack Linux computers -
I've yet to see one.

Perhaps one of the biggest reason why viruses and malicious software are
not as much of a problem as it is with a Windows PC is because of effort
vs results.

And it has nothing to do with the fact that Windows is so easy to
compromise. Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

Now if the number of Linux and Windows systems in use were
reversed, then I wouldn't be surprised to see that Linus systems had
more viruses and malware that a Windows system.



I would be very surprised. You apparently know nothing about Linux
architecture or how quickly security issues are patched.

--
Alias

On 10/12/2010 2:20 PM, Alias wrote:
On 12/10/2010 03:06 PM, Rob wrote:
wrote in message
...
On 12/10/2010 02:43 AM, relic wrote:

wrote in message
...
On 12/09/2010 08:55 PM, relic wrote:

"Char wrote in message
...
On Thu, 9 Dec 2010 10:04:17 -0800,
wrote:

Webroot's SpySweeper is well worth the money. The freebies are
fair at
removing, but not very good at all at the job of prevention.
SpySweeper is
the only one I have tested that stops the AntiVirus virus from
installing
itself.

Same thing with the free Anti-Virus programs; they handle old
viruses
fairly
well, but miss new threats. Use something with a heuristic
engine
like NOD32
if you really want to be protected.

Everything I've seen and read over the last 12-24 months shows
the
best freebies being on par with the best paid products at
prevention,
detection, and removal. There are mediocre products in both
categories.

The free AV's have greatly improved over the last year, but their
history was pretty abysmal.

*VB100 Results Overview:
AVG
36 Success / 22 Failure / 15 No Entry
...their last "Fail" was June 2007.
Avast!
40 Success / 23 Failure / 10 No Entry
...their last "Fail" was December 2008.
Avira
26 Success / 5 Failure / 42 No Entry
...their last "Fail" was October 2009.

Too new to have a real record:
Microsoft Security Essentials
3 Success / 1 Failure / 69 No Entry
...their last "Fail" was April 2010

The freebies still almost always miss brand new viruses. (They
can still
"Pass" VB100's tests when a virus is brand new. I don't know of
any
heuristic engine AV that missed them.)


I've always used ESET's NOD32:
Eset
66 Success / 3 Failure / 4 No Entry
...their last "Fail" was April 2002.

Generally rated as 2nd place:
Kaspersky
55 Success / 18 Failure / 0 No Entry
...but their last "Fail" was just April 2010.

*VB100's testing has been recognized as the best for many years,
but
recently some AV vendors have stopped having their product tested
because of frequent "Fail" ratings. Trend Micro is one of the
latest
companies to quit submitting products instead of improving their
product.


As the OP implied, it's almost cult-like. I have never gotten
infected
with a virus or trojan using NOD32, and Malware hasn't gotten
past
SpySweeper for over three years on my system. That makes be
believe I'll
stick with them.

All anti virus programs have to play catch up to the new viruses
as do
the anti malware programs. With Linux, that isn't a problem with
which
one needs to concern oneself.

The heuristic engine design _does_ catch a lot of new ones.



But not all. In fact you could be infected and you don't even know
it. Linux doesn't have that problem.

But linux is a PITA for non-geek users, unless they only want very
simple
applications, such as web browsers and word processors. Using it to
try
and run more complex applications which "just work" under Windows 7,

Like what?

by using Wine etc, usually needs end-users to climb a steep learning
curve and
start typing lines of incomprehensible-to-them gobbledegook into linux
command
windows.
When mainstream software houses start selling mainstream applications
in
linux-ready formats, things may change. Until then, your linux
advocacy is just
wasting bandwidth (especially on a Windows 7 forum.)

Your post is so full of bull****, I don't know where to begin. I haven't
used a command line in *years*. Most people can use Linux Mint and have
all the programs they need for free. If you need Windows for gaming or
some special program that only runs on Windows, you can dual boot and
use Windows for what it's good at and use Linux for what it's good at. I
have unlimited bandwidth so I'm not wasting anything. The phrase
"wasting bandwidth" was appropriate back in the dial up days but not
now, sport.


As I've told you before, no Linux geek would ever use Mint or the other
toy, as in their opinion, their for kids. They're too easy to use and
would rather stick pins in their eyes than use your sad recommendation.
Now, go away and play with your marbles!!

On Sat, 11 Dec 2010 14:12:33 +0000, Boscoe
wrote:
On 10/12/2010 2:20 PM, Alias wrote:
On 12/10/2010 03:06 PM, Rob wrote:
wrote in message
...
On 12/10/2010 02:43 AM, relic wrote:

wrote in message
...
On 12/09/2010 08:55 PM, relic wrote:

"Char wrote in message
...
On Thu, 9 Dec 2010 10:04:17 -0800,
wrote:

Webroot's SpySweeper is well worth the money. The freebies
are
fair at
removing, but not very good at all at the job of
prevention.
SpySweeper is
the only one I have tested that stops the AntiVirus virus
from
installing
itself.

Same thing with the free Anti-Virus programs; they handle
old
viruses
fairly
well, but miss new threats. Use something with a heuristic
engine
like NOD32
if you really want to be protected.

Everything I've seen and read over the last 12-24 months
shows
the
best freebies being on par with the best paid products at
prevention,
detection, and removal. There are mediocre products in both
categories.

The free AV's have greatly improved over the last year, but
their
history was pretty abysmal.

*VB100 Results Overview:
AVG
36 Success / 22 Failure / 15 No Entry
...their last "Fail" was June 2007.
Avast!
40 Success / 23 Failure / 10 No Entry
...their last "Fail" was December 2008.
Avira
26 Success / 5 Failure / 42 No Entry
...their last "Fail" was October 2009.

Too new to have a real record:
Microsoft Security Essentials
3 Success / 1 Failure / 69 No Entry
...their last "Fail" was April 2010

The freebies still almost always miss brand new viruses.
(They
can still
"Pass" VB100's tests when a virus is brand new. I don't know
of
any
heuristic engine AV that missed them.)


I've always used ESET's NOD32:
Eset
66 Success / 3 Failure / 4 No Entry
...their last "Fail" was April 2002.

Generally rated as 2nd place:
Kaspersky
55 Success / 18 Failure / 0 No Entry
...but their last "Fail" was just April 2010.

*VB100's testing has been recognized as the best for many
years,
but
recently some AV vendors have stopped having their product
tested
because of frequent "Fail" ratings. Trend Micro is one of the
latest
companies to quit submitting products instead of improving
their
product.


As the OP implied, it's almost cult-like. I have never gotten
infected
with a virus or trojan using NOD32, and Malware hasn't gotten
past
SpySweeper for over three years on my system. That makes be
believe I'll
stick with them.

All anti virus programs have to play catch up to the new
viruses
as do
the anti malware programs. With Linux, that isn't a problem
with
which
one needs to concern oneself.

The heuristic engine design _does_ catch a lot of new ones.



But not all. In fact you could be infected and you don't even
know
it. Linux doesn't have that problem.

But linux is a PITA for non-geek users, unless they only want
very
simple
applications, such as web browsers and word processors. Using it
to
try
and run more complex applications which "just work" under
Windows 7,

Like what?

by using Wine etc, usually needs end-users to climb a steep
learning
curve and
start typing lines of incomprehensible-to-them gobbledegook into
linux
command
windows.
When mainstream software houses start selling mainstream
applications
in
linux-ready formats, things may change. Until then, your linux
advocacy is just
wasting bandwidth (especially on a Windows 7 forum.)

Your post is so full of bull****, I don't know where to begin. I
haven't
used a command line in *years*. Most people can use Linux Mint
and have
all the programs they need for free. If you need Windows for
gaming or
some special program that only runs on Windows, you can dual boot
and
use Windows for what it's good at and use Linux for what it's
good at. I
have unlimited bandwidth so I'm not wasting anything. The phrase
"wasting bandwidth" was appropriate back in the dial up days but
not
now, sport.



As I've told you before, no Linux geek would ever use Mint or the
other
toy, as in their opinion, their for kids. They're too easy to use
and
would rather stick pins in their eyes than use your sad
recommendation.
Now, go away and play with your marbles!!

Yeah, Alias is good at running its mouth, wasting bandwidth. It
cherish the moments when it can waste someone's time.

--
posted with a Droid

On 12/11/2010 03:12 PM, Boscoe wrote:
On 10/12/2010 2:20 PM, Alias wrote:
On 12/10/2010 03:06 PM, Rob wrote:
wrote in message
...
On 12/10/2010 02:43 AM, relic wrote:

wrote in message
...
On 12/09/2010 08:55 PM, relic wrote:

"Char wrote in message
...
On Thu, 9 Dec 2010 10:04:17 -0800,
wrote:

Webroot's SpySweeper is well worth the money. The freebies are
fair at
removing, but not very good at all at the job of prevention.
SpySweeper is
the only one I have tested that stops the AntiVirus virus from
installing
itself.

Same thing with the free Anti-Virus programs; they handle old
viruses
fairly
well, but miss new threats. Use something with a heuristic
engine
like NOD32
if you really want to be protected.

Everything I've seen and read over the last 12-24 months shows
the
best freebies being on par with the best paid products at
prevention,
detection, and removal. There are mediocre products in both
categories.

The free AV's have greatly improved over the last year, but their
history was pretty abysmal.

*VB100 Results Overview:
AVG
36 Success / 22 Failure / 15 No Entry
...their last "Fail" was June 2007.
Avast!
40 Success / 23 Failure / 10 No Entry
...their last "Fail" was December 2008.
Avira
26 Success / 5 Failure / 42 No Entry
...their last "Fail" was October 2009.

Too new to have a real record:
Microsoft Security Essentials
3 Success / 1 Failure / 69 No Entry
...their last "Fail" was April 2010

The freebies still almost always miss brand new viruses. (They
can still
"Pass" VB100's tests when a virus is brand new. I don't know of
any
heuristic engine AV that missed them.)


I've always used ESET's NOD32:
Eset
66 Success / 3 Failure / 4 No Entry
...their last "Fail" was April 2002.

Generally rated as 2nd place:
Kaspersky
55 Success / 18 Failure / 0 No Entry
...but their last "Fail" was just April 2010.

*VB100's testing has been recognized as the best for many years,
but
recently some AV vendors have stopped having their product tested
because of frequent "Fail" ratings. Trend Micro is one of the
latest
companies to quit submitting products instead of improving their
product.


As the OP implied, it's almost cult-like. I have never gotten
infected
with a virus or trojan using NOD32, and Malware hasn't gotten
past
SpySweeper for over three years on my system. That makes be
believe I'll
stick with them.

All anti virus programs have to play catch up to the new viruses
as do
the anti malware programs. With Linux, that isn't a problem with
which
one needs to concern oneself.

The heuristic engine design _does_ catch a lot of new ones.



But not all. In fact you could be infected and you don't even know
it. Linux doesn't have that problem.

But linux is a PITA for non-geek users, unless they only want very
simple
applications, such as web browsers and word processors. Using it to
try
and run more complex applications which "just work" under Windows 7,

Like what?

by using Wine etc, usually needs end-users to climb a steep learning
curve and
start typing lines of incomprehensible-to-them gobbledegook into linux
command
windows.
When mainstream software houses start selling mainstream applications
in
linux-ready formats, things may change. Until then, your linux
advocacy is just
wasting bandwidth (especially on a Windows 7 forum.)

Your post is so full of bull****, I don't know where to begin. I haven't
used a command line in *years*. Most people can use Linux Mint and have
all the programs they need for free. If you need Windows for gaming or
some special program that only runs on Windows, you can dual boot and
use Windows for what it's good at and use Linux for what it's good at. I
have unlimited bandwidth so I'm not wasting anything. The phrase
"wasting bandwidth" was appropriate back in the dial up days but not
now, sport.


As I've told you before, no Linux geek would ever use Mint or the other
toy, as in their opinion, their for kids.

"Their"? Your opinion means nothing.

They're too easy to use and
would rather stick pins in their eyes than use your sad recommendation.
Now, go away and play with your marbles!!

No.

--
Alias

On 11/12/2010 3:56 PM, Alias wrote:
Your post is so full of bull****, I don't know where to begin. I haven't
used a command line in *years*. Most people can use Linux Mint and have
all the programs they need for free. If you need Windows for gaming or
some special program that only runs on Windows, you can dual boot and
use Windows for what it's good at and use Linux for what it's good at. I
have unlimited bandwidth so I'm not wasting anything. The phrase
"wasting bandwidth" was appropriate back in the dial up days but not
now, sport.


As I've told you before, no Linux geek would ever use Mint or the other
toy, as in their opinion, their for kids.

"Their"? Your opinion means nothing.


I know a a few Linux geeks and they all use FreeBSD. Give it a go?


They're too easy to use and
would rather stick pins in their eyes than use your sad recommendation.
Now, go away and play with your marbles!!

No.


Petulant child

On 12/11/2010 05:52 PM, Boscoe wrote:
On 11/12/2010 3:56 PM, Alias wrote:
Your post is so full of bull****, I don't know where to begin. I
haven't
used a command line in *years*. Most people can use Linux Mint and have
all the programs they need for free. If you need Windows for gaming or
some special program that only runs on Windows, you can dual boot and
use Windows for what it's good at and use Linux for what it's good
at. I
have unlimited bandwidth so I'm not wasting anything. The phrase
"wasting bandwidth" was appropriate back in the dial up days but not
now, sport.


As I've told you before, no Linux geek would ever use Mint or the other
toy, as in their opinion, their for kids.

"Their"? Your opinion means nothing.


I know a a few Linux geeks and they all use FreeBSD.

Good for them.

Give it a go?

Why should when I'm happy with Linux Mint?



They're too easy to use and
would rather stick pins in their eyes than use your sad recommendation.
Now, go away and play with your marbles!!

No.


Petulant child

That would be you.

--
Alias

On 11/12/2010 5:02 PM, Alias wrote:
On 12/11/2010 05:52 PM, Boscoe wrote:
On 11/12/2010 3:56 PM, Alias wrote:
Your post is so full of bull****, I don't know where to begin. I
haven't
used a command line in *years*. Most people can use Linux Mint and
have
all the programs they need for free. If you need Windows for gaming or
some special program that only runs on Windows, you can dual boot and
use Windows for what it's good at and use Linux for what it's good
at. I
have unlimited bandwidth so I'm not wasting anything. The phrase
"wasting bandwidth" was appropriate back in the dial up days but not
now, sport.


As I've told you before, no Linux geek would ever use Mint or the other
toy, as in their opinion, their for kids.

"Their"? Your opinion means nothing.


I know a a few Linux geeks and they all use FreeBSD.

Good for them.

Give it a go?

Why should when I'm happy with Linux Mint?


We're all happy with Windows 7 on here, but that doesn't stop you
trolling on here...