win7 fails on 7
Full Version: Windows 7 fails to block 7 of 10 pieces Malware
I'll happily live with reduced UAC and fight malware in other ways thank you very much.
I always disable UAC.
And run other free better security software instead.
And run other free better security software instead.
This "test" is nonsense. You don't make a test using 10 malware samples.
QUOTE
If you go back through the articles to find out how the actual test was conducted, they did it by manually executing the malware programs on the machine. That makes their whole test nonsense. I'm sorry, but if you tell your machine to execute a piece of malware, then you deserve to end up with a piece of malware running on your system.
It's not the job of the operating system to prevent user stupidity. The job of the operating system is to prevent remote exploits that allow code to be executed without any intervention (buffer overflow attacks and the like). If they had shown that a computer could be infected with these programs without the user needing to manually execute the malware code, then I would be concerned. As it is however, all they have shown is that if you do stupid things on your computer, bad stuff can still happen to you.
It's not the job of the operating system to prevent user stupidity. The job of the operating system is to prevent remote exploits that allow code to be executed without any intervention (buffer overflow attacks and the like). If they had shown that a computer could be infected with these programs without the user needing to manually execute the malware code, then I would be concerned. As it is however, all they have shown is that if you do stupid things on your computer, bad stuff can still happen to you.
Point in case. This test fails.
AJ
This test is a complete fail. I agree with Aethec. You can't conduct a proper test using only 10 malware samples! You need to use hundreds of malware samples to actually get a good percentage of how whatever you're testing is doing.
I agree.
Agreed! get the Apps. to protect yourself. don't just trust Windows Defender... 
QUOTE
Windows Vista Ultimate 64-Bit Edition | COOLER MASTER Centurion 590 with 4 120mm Blue LED FANS 1 Regular 120MM FAN and a Custom Window Side Panel | AMD Athlon II x4 2.6GHZ Stock| XIGMATEK HDT-S963 92mm | ASRock A780GXE/128 | G.SKILL 4GB (2 x 2GB) @800MHZ | CF 2 XFX 4850 1GB @GPU940/MEM1005 | 320GB/OS 160GB/Storage HDDs | LG CD/DVD SATA | Rosewill 600W 2 12v Rail@44 | Ccleaner, Defraggler | Malwarebytes', SUPERAnti-Spyware | Avira AntiVir Personal | FireFox, Google Chrome v4, IE8
Good God, do you run NASA?
QUOTE (Corona @ Nov 7 2009, 10:53 PM) 
Good God, do you run NASA?
That's nothing - wanna hear my rig? LOL
AJ
QUOTE (CTskifreak @ Nov 7 2009, 11:09 PM)
That's nothing - wanna hear my rig? LOL
AJ
what AJ said. Computers have come along way and i'm no Intel Fan as you can see. me AMD all the way. AMD FTW! o.. and i am running Windows 7 Ultimate now.AJ
i do however someday plan on buying bigger HDDs for my rig. maybe two 500GB.
i would go Intel but hey you can't go wrong with a Quad Core only $100! and OC'ing that to 3.3GHZ is/was awesome! plus Intel needs to lower there prices on their older CPUs but you get good performance. AMD is just better in my opinion.
AJ, have you messed with the new ATI 58XX series GPUs? Bad ass i'd say. may get one 5850 later or something along the road when i need to.
QUOTE (New_Age @ Nov 9 2009, 01:42 AM)
what AJ said. Computers have come along way and i'm no Intel Fan as you can see. me AMD all the way. AMD FTW! o.. and i am running Windows 7 Ultimate now.
i do however someday plan on buying bigger HDDs for my rig. maybe two 500GB.
i would go Intel but hey you can't go wrong with a Quad Core only $100! and OC'ing that to 3.3GHZ is/was awesome! plus Intel needs to lower there prices on their older CPUs but you get good performance. AMD is just better in my opinion.
AJ, have you messed with the new ATI 58XX series GPUs? Bad ass i'd say. may get one 5850 later or something along the road when i need to.
i do however someday plan on buying bigger HDDs for my rig. maybe two 500GB.
i would go Intel but hey you can't go wrong with a Quad Core only $100! and OC'ing that to 3.3GHZ is/was awesome! plus Intel needs to lower there prices on their older CPUs but you get good performance. AMD is just better in my opinion.
AJ, have you messed with the new ATI 58XX series GPUs? Bad ass i'd say. may get one 5850 later or something along the road when i need to.
I haven't used one - but I've read about that- got to see what NVIDIA does with the GT300 series. AMD has the lower end of the market - Intel has the mid to high range locked up. The newer i5 and i7 processors are ridiculous. I'd suggest getting a 1 TB drive - you can get OEM versions for about $85-90 on Newegg.
My system:
Intel Core i7 920
Asus P6T Motherboard
6 GB's DDR3 Patriot Viper RAM
NVIDIA GTX 285 GPU
1 TB Samsung HDD
X-Fi soundcard
Windows 7 Ultimate
I might get an aftermarket CPU cooler and overclock it some - I'm on the fence about that.
AJ
QUOTE (CTskifreak @ Nov 9 2009, 03:04 AM)
I haven't used one - but I've read about that- got to see what NVIDIA does with the GT300 series. AMD has the lower end of the market - Intel has the mid to high range locked up. The newer i5 and i7 processors are ridiculous. I'd suggest getting a 1 TB drive - you can get OEM versions for about $85-90 on Newegg.
My system:
Intel Core i7 920
Asus P6T Motherboard
6 GB's DDR3 Patriot Viper RAM
NVIDIA GTX 285 GPU
1 TB Samsung HDD
X-Fi soundcard
Windows 7 Ultimate
I might get an aftermarket CPU cooler and overclock it some - I'm on the fence about that.
AJ
My system:
Intel Core i7 920
Asus P6T Motherboard
6 GB's DDR3 Patriot Viper RAM
NVIDIA GTX 285 GPU
1 TB Samsung HDD
X-Fi soundcard
Windows 7 Ultimate
I might get an aftermarket CPU cooler and overclock it some - I'm on the fence about that.
AJ
what AJ?! no OC on a i7 and stock cooling? o shame on you. go after a 3rd party cooler and OC that beast.
Note: OC if you ONLY and when you need to
Note: OC if you ONLY and when you need to
UAC isn't a full blown anti virus - it's supposed to stop notify you for administrator level changes - not all viruses need that to do their damage.
AJ
AJ
QUOTE (CTskifreak @ Nov 10 2009, 03:12 AM)
UAC isn't a full blown anti virus - it's supposed to stop notify you for administrator level changes - not all viruses need that to do their damage.
AJ
AJ
Good remark.
wow, who thought UAC was an Anti-Virus? LMAO
Well that's what all of these tests seem to try and prove that. Like I said 3 post earlier,
And then my counter point was -
So, it seems like they assume that viruses need administrator levels of access to change stuff - we here obviously know that is far from the truth.
AJ
QUOTE (CTskifreak @ Nov 9 2009, 11:12 PM)
UAC isn't a full blown anti virus - it's supposed to stop and notify you for administrator level changes
And then my counter point was -
QUOTE
- not all viruses need that to do their damage. AJ
So, it seems like they assume that viruses need administrator levels of access to change stuff - we here obviously know that is far from the truth.
AJ
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.