Metropol

cdd wrote:

If you have never once used an anti-virus program then how do know you do not have a virus?

How do I know? Because my computer runs blissfully fast, and always has done. However, just to prove this, I did a quick virus scan and it found - just as I thought - no viruses.

At least now you have given your point a bit of credibility.

cdd wrote:

let's not confuse that with being able to deal with them

If you don't get a virus, why would you need to deal with it?

If you take a look back to what I actually said - Yes everyone is aware of viruses, but that doesn't mean they know how to deal with them correctly.
The entire point of all this which seems to have completely passed you by is that in reality people do get viruses - they deal with them by using anti virus software.

cdd wrote:

Oh and two tea's in attachment, no coffee.

If I may quote you...

virus's

The price you pay for running things through a spelling and grammar check beforehand.

cdd wrote:

Any virus that makes it to mainstream news programmes is usually worthy of being noted

You're forgetting that newspapers are out to make money, and since people get into a frenzy about viruses, putting "EASY TO FOLLOW TUTORIAL TO AVOID REALLY DANGEROUS VIRUS" really does sell, there's no doubt about it.

Upon a closer look it seems I wasnt talking about newspapers...

cdd wrote:

Do you ever download computer programs from the Internet? If you do, how do you know that they do not contain viruses?

Because I get all my programs from trusted sources. Also, doesn't the word "common sense" just cry out here?

Not especially.

cdd wrote:

If you completely uninstall then reinstall it after 12 months, you get another year's worth of free updates

Doesn't the very fact you can do this show the kind of market they're aiming at?

Internet users?

The general public?

.....those with a life?

Perhaps I'm missing your point.

First off, I shouldn't have said that those who get viruses deserve them; this is untrue. No-one deserves a virus. I also don't mean to be entirely condescending, but the point I'm trying to convey does involve an amount of... erm... condescendingness.

Martin wrote:everyone is aware of viruses, but that doesn't mean they know how to deal with them correctly

And you think the people who don't know how to deal with these viruses know how to download the updates?
At the end of the day, it all comes down to the simplest thing which is common sense, and vigilance - the latter of which, it could even be said, that people have too much of.

Upon a closer look it seems I wasnt talking about newspapers...

Point is the same between television programmes and newspapers.

cdd wrote:Doesn't the word "common sense" just cry out here?

Not especially.

Well, if a site is badly designed and generally has a nasty aura, it's safe to say it's not a great site to be getting programs off, isn't it? If a site is well designed, has lots of documentation about said product, and - generally - has a reliable and trustyworthy feel to it, then it's probably safe to say that its goods are virus-free.

cdd wrote:

Martin wrote:everyone is aware of viruses, but that doesn't mean they know how to deal with them correctly

And you think the people who don't know how to deal with these viruses know how to download the updates?

Would you be in favour of software products that update themselves automatically, without user intervention? The rise in usage of (r)ADSL/cable connections in the UK is starting to make this possible. Then all those people who don't know how to update their computer will not even need to worry about it, and all those advanced users who detest automatic updates can switch it off and do their own thing.

Cdd, would you agree that a correctly (and automatically) configured and updated virus protection program would be beneficial for novice computer users?

MarkN wrote:

cdd wrote:

Martin wrote:everyone is aware of viruses, but that doesn't mean they know how to deal with them correctly

And you think the people who don't know how to deal with these viruses know how to download the updates?

Would you be in favour of software products that update themselves automatically, without user intervention? The rise in usage of (r)ADSL/cable connections in the UK is starting to make this possible. Then all those people who don't know how to update their computer will not even need to worry about it, and all those advanced users who detest automatic updates can switch it off and do their own thing.

Cdd, would you agree that a correctly (and automatically) configured and updated virus protection program would be beneficial for novice computer users?

This would be ideal, but software programs that "phone home" often get accused of being spyware.

And yes, Mark, I do agree that a perfectly configured antivirus program would be great for novice users. But this is very idealistic and probably not possible.

cdd wrote: Well, if a site is badly designed and generally has a nasty aura, it's safe to say it's not a great site to be getting programs off, isn't it? If a site is well designed, has lots of documentation about said product, and - generally - has a reliable and trustyworthy feel to it, then it's probably safe to say that its goods are virus-free.

I understand where your coming from, but alot of products work fine. Even if the design is terrible.

What about download.com ? You can't say that due to its fancy small print stating that it abids to certain acts and laws confirms that any file linked to the site, any file reccomended by the site, doesn't contain contain malicous code.