Anomaly
-
Posts
256 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Anomaly
-
-
It would be difficult to read any reviews on a piece of software if everyone waited for someone else to try it first Anomaly. There would be nothing to read
Big av companies are expected to release a working version of a new release, but sometimes it is only after the general public have had a go at it that certain issues come to light.
This forum swaps info on these software issues and the latest news.
If we all waited, like you seem to be suggesting, we would end up with very little info to go on.
Please try and be a more tolerant of others users right to use their computer as they see fit.
Also please bear in mind that if your reply to this post is anything like you gave to another moderator of this forum
Well, let's just say I would be a bit annoyed.
I would say all most all software has problems when it has a major update. This is just a fact. Unless a person wants to be a sort of beta tester the best course of action is to wait. There are many people out there that enjoy using new versions of programs specifically to trouble shoot them so there will always be people finding the bugs. I would let these people do the work since they seem to like to.
What annoys me is the people that have computers running just fine and than go install a major updated program as soon as it become available and than are surprised when they start having major issues. It happens every time. Go to any support forum for any program and watch what happens after a major update. The forum is full of posts by people that had perfectly running computers that now have all kinds of problems. Why do it to yourself?
-
Hmmm. I choose to upgrade to the latest version of my current AV. Does that mean I'm jumping all over it?
How long was Avira 10 out before you updated? Did you bother to wait and than read the reviews before you updated? Where you having problems with the previous version of Avira? You sure have problems now. What did you gain by updating so quick?
-
Why do you people jump all over new releases than wonder why you have issues. You bring it on your self. I think some people like having problems.
-
Many people use computers as a means to an end, in the same way that many people stick with a basic saloon car and couldn't give a damn about the latest Ferrari. Doesn't necessarily mean to say they can't drive one. Their motivation for change is because the car breaks down, not because there's a new Ferrari out.
Basically what I am saying to. They can't be bothered to learn a new system as long as the old one still works.
Doesn't matter any ways they will move on or be left behind and there is no debating that.
-
I agree that most Linux users are likely to be technically savvy – that’s one reason why they’re running it in the first place. Not so sure about Mac users generally – always seen that as a niche market anyway.
I think this is a massive generalisation and an over-simplification. Historically, for many users "computers come with Windows". There’s always a financial cost associated in upgrading a Windows OS (at least if you’re doing it legally) and quite often there’s a reluctance to upgrade the OS because of either perceived or genuine issues with newer Windows OSs being resource-hungry. XP was a hugely popular OS - add to that the fiasco that was Vista and you can see why there’s such a big XP user population. At the same time, as Aethec says, it is an aging OS and XP users have to accept that things move on.
I like Windows and I make a living writing software for the Windows platform. At home I’m still running XP and for me it’s practicable to move to W7 at the same time as upgrading my desktop hardware – coming soon I hope. But for the moment XP does what I need it to and I’m not in a hurry to upgrade.
Yes people have to move on, but it's more complicated than apathy and comfort zones.
The huge majority of present day computer users (I'm talking 99.9999%) learned on computers with a Microsoft OS on it. Most are still extremely ignorant on how to use their computer. They don't even consider trying Linux or Mac OS X since they don't even maximize their current Windows OS. The little they do know was a huge learning curve for them and trying another OS is just over whelming for them, even another Windows OS. Most Mac and Linux users learned Windows inside and out and wanted to expand their knowledge base so branched out to other OS's. That's not a "massive generalisation". It's very plain to see that this is the way it is. Unless Microsoft kills XP these people will not leave their XP comfort zone and come up with all kinds of excuses to justify being stagnant in their computer knowledge.
Cost is not really an issue with Linux and the upgrade from XP to Windows 7 is not really an issue when you consider how cheap new computers with Windows are and the upgrade disks are not very much money either. I will admit that even the low cost of up grading to Windows 7 might be too much for some but that doesn't explain the huge user base for XP that still refuses to move on. They are just unwilling to improve because it's too much work for them as long as they have a OS around that they already know.
-
I've been saying that for years myself, yet I'm still using Windows simply because it works without any b.s. of trying to get some hardware to function in Linux. That and I rely upon Windows for the software I like to use.
I think I have seen you post that you are still using XP. Do you plan to upgrade to Windows 7? There should not be a problem getting your soft ware to work with it.
-
Why would Microsoft - or anyone - want to support a 9-years-old OS, that will probably be 10 years old when IE9 launches ?
Because the sad fact is most people use Windows and most Windows users use XP.
No offense to Windows users but I find Linux and Mac users to be more computer literate and willing and able to keep up with tech progress. Windows XP users probably had a hard time learning the little they know and don't want to make the effort to learn any more. Windows 7, Mac OS X, and especially Linux are going to require learning much more and XP users don't want to leave their comfort zone.
-
They wanted the ballot screen, and now they published an unfinished product because of it. How ironic.
Just the beginning to. Both Opera and Firefox are going to shoot themselves in the head in their pursuit of market share. They both need to just ignore Chrome and continue what they were doing. If they continue to chase Chrome they will regret it. They are losing focus of what made them great browsers.
-
Way to go Opera. Hurry up and rush out another update before it's ready and stable so you can follow Chrome like a bunch of idiots.
-
I would get used to the problems you are experiencing on Firefox and Opera to. The developers of both these browsers seem to think Google Chrome is the one to follow. As a result you will see big changes in both browsers and a greatly sped up release cycle. Both of these things will result in buggy browsers and drive people into using Google Chrome. Both Firefox and Opera are shooting them selves in the head by going down this path. I hope I`m wrong but recent events seem to be confirming my concerns.
-
I'm having terrible results so far. About half the sites I try to visit won't load. For example, when trying to load Gmail, it gets stuck in an endless cycle of "sending request to" and "completed request to", then "send" and then "completed", and that goes on and on indefinitely. On other sites it gets stuck on something about DNS server and cookies (even though cookies are enabled).
When I can only visit about half the sites I try to, that's a pretty poor product put out by Opera.
It's very obvious Opera rushed this final release. The most likely reason is to have it out in time for the new browser selection page that Microsoft has to provide on new installs of Windows in Europe. Stupid move on Opera's part. If people using Windows in Europe select Opera from the selection page and have the same experience you did they will be turned off. What was Opera thinking?
-
I just downloaded the Fanboy list, opened it in Notepad and noticed that Fanboy's list has these symbols shaped like a box before each url and the file isn't in list form. However, if I copied his list to Wordpad, the file was in list form and the asterisk wildcards appeared, and the box symbols disappeared. I then copied the Wordpad list and pasted the items in my Opera urlfilter.ini file, in the exclude section.
Fanboys list is already a urlfilter.ini file. No need to copy the entrys and than paste them into the excludes section. Just download Fanboy's list and place it as is in your Opera profile and it will replace your current urlfilter.ini file.
-
Yes, but they haven't fixed it. And since FF doesn't sandbox tabs, the browser crashes.
Separate processes are also a good idea for security ; even if one tab is hacked, it - theoretically - can't do any damage to Windows.
Like crashes malware is rarity for me. I can't remember the last time I was even alerted to a threat from my AV never mind actually getting infected.
I think this separate process thing is a gimmick. Something Chrome did to differentiate it's self from other browsers. Since Chrome has caught on so quickly the other browsers feel the need to follow. You will see Firefox copying Chrome on more than just the separate process thing to. They will put the tabs on top like Chrome and Chrome ripped off Opera on that idea. Now that Chrome has done it everybody thinks it's great but they hated it when Opera did it.
I would prefer they did not put each tab and extension and plugin in a separate tab. The negatives out way the positives for me. I could see just separating some plugins to a separate process but not every tab and extension.
-
Having a separate process for each tab/plugin is a good thing.
If you go to this site in Firefox, the browser crashes. If you use IE, only the tab crashes.
I can't remember the last time any of my browsers crashed. It's a rarity for me.
I get why they want to go the separate process for every tab and extension route but I don't see how having twenty processes and hundreds of MB of RAM being used is a good thing to prevent something I rarely ever get (crashes).
-
I mean for example what Opera has done to their widgets lately. They've now made them separate from the main browser, and that takes up more space, ram etc.
I see what you mean. This is a trend all browser seem to be following. Firefox's next version is supposed to run plugins like Flash in a separate process like Chrome does.
Seems like the browser developers think Chrome is the one to follow. I've seen future versions of the Firefox UI and it will have tabs above the navigation bar like Opera has for years and Chrome copied. I remember when one of the biggest complaints from people switching to Opera from IE or Firefox was the tabs at the top. Now Chrome does it and all of a sudden it's this amazing idea.
-
I think that Opera's started to get a bit bloated lately. On my computer Opera was also slower than Minefield.
Bloated? Hmmm when you consider all the features that it comes with it's amazingly light.
-
No. I only have one extension and I don't keep more tabs. Anyway, Google Chrome is just faster.
Thats why you see less RAM. Install 5 or 6 extensions and open 4 or 5 tabs and you will have over 10 processes running and well over 200 MB of RAM.
As for speed it's no faster than Firefox and it's slower than Opera.
-
What's the best threads dont ever get any where because it's all based on own users opinion.
How much RAM is being used is not opinion it's fact. If some one says Chrome is using less RAM than Firefox they have zero extensions and only one tab open. Every tab and extension adds another process and loads of RAM.
-
Have you tried the New Google Chrome? Way less RAM usage
Read the first sentence of my post.
-
I have been using Chrome since it's first betas (I use many browsers) and it's a decent browser but Firefox and Opera are far better.
The basic Chrome browser with no extensions is very stripped down and bare. The extensions that are available for Chrome (currently over 2000) are for the most part junk. There are some good ones that are definite keepers but the large majority are just junk.
Chrome is a massive resource hog. Every tab and every extension runs in a separate process. I know why this is done but the result is huge RAM usage. Far more than Firefox ever used.
Chrome is fast but no faster than Firefox on my computers and the new Opera 10.5 betas are faster than all other browsers.
Overall chrome is pretty good but I can't even begin to understand how people find it better than Firefox or Opera.
-
I'm so very, very close to switching to either Ubuntu or Fedora, but the only thing that is holding me back is that none of them have drivers for my printer.
I'm am going to go with Linux Mint when I start to use Linux. From all the research I have done so far it's the most user-friendly for Linux newbs which I certainly am.
-
Tbh that was a personally joke as i had 4 people yesterday mention to me about mac problems.
I myself prefer linux, my laptop is crunchbang but my pc is xp
It makes no odd's to me with what os people use or browser.
i was just having a laugh because 90% of mac uses would not ever hear a bad word about there impossible to infect machine.
I prefer Mac to Windows but cannot stand Mac fanboys. They worship at the alter of Steve Jobs. It's sickening to be honest. There is no denying the ease of use and clean professional UI of a Mac though. Anyways I think we are high jacking this thread so lets leave it a that
-
4th person tonight, macs suck lol
id imagine its rocket D
I get a kick out of the battles between Microsoft morons and Mac fanboys. Why do you have to choose one or the other? I use both and they both have their good and bad points. It's silly. I'm learning Linux now to so I will be a three OS person. It's funny listening to a Windows person slam Mac when they don't have any idea what they are talking about. Same with the Mac fanboys. They think Steve Jobs created the universe and Steve thinks that to
Same thing with the browser wars. I use many different browsers and they all have good and bad points. I see no need to pick one and slam the others. -
When you upgrade to Windows 7 you will find that there is a recovery program built right in. You make an image of your system and store it some where safe like an external HDD. You make a recovery disk (the recovery disk image to make the bootable disk is provided right inside windows 7) to boot from and then restore the image you saved. You can also just back up folders or files. It's very easy to use and built right in.
Another thing with Windows 7 is that system restore is a whole different thing compared to XP. In Windows 7 it literally makes a snap shot of your system and you will roll back to the way your system was when you created a restore point. As you know XP system restore can cause more problems than it causes since it doesn't really image your system when you create a restore point.
Point is recovering your system is much easier in Windows 7 than XP. If you want to use Macrium still than you will have plenty of options.
Same thing with the browser wars. I use many different browsers and they all have good and bad points. I see no need to pick one and slam the others.
AVIRA 10 released !
in Software
Posted
Of course it's a personal choice. I never said or implied it wasn't.
As for the experience factor I think you have it backwards. It's not the "less experienced folk" that wait to upgrade. They are usually the first because they don't know any better. When they do it a few times and mess up their perfectly running computers that's when they gain their experience and learn just because something is out of beta and been released as a stable release doesn't mean it is stable. In fact it is almost guaranteed that it's not stable. Experienced folk know this and wait unless they specifically want to trouble shoot. Any ways it's your computer to do with as you please and I wouldn't suggest other wise.