Pippi wrote:
>I use Eudora for mail. I like it, it's nice, it's easy, and it doesn't
open >attachments by itself, not even pictures.
Eudora opens HTML attachments for me.
Boanne wrote:
>My experience is that the last thing the "point and drool" users of
Windows want is to >be educated about computers and software and how they
work. I have even had Windows >users tell me this.
This guy I'm working with on our math labs at university seemed to think it
was extremly funny that I used the keyboard before using the mouse. He
seemed impressed by the speed that I could do things (writing the report in
Word).
Pippi wrote:
>He HATES computers. Will rant on about it at the merest mention of them.
The theatre >stuck one in his office last year.
Many people that say they hate computers say it's because "the computers
always crash", and that is far from the truth. Sadly these people don't
want to hear that there are "crash-free" alternatives out there.
Ben A L Jemmett wrote:
>Again, Joe has a hard time doing that, because all the Dave Managers of
the world are >pushing Windows and saying 'you work here, you use Windows'.
So Joe is forced to use >Windows.
>
>IOW, the set of people who choose to use Windows != the set of people who
are forced to >use Windows. You can most certainly have it both ways, but
not for the same people.
But, and not that I want to glorify whoever spread this virus, the problem
is Daves in the end anyway since he is the one in charge.
Boanne wrote:
>It's time and time and past time to get over the "computer phobia"
already! People do >things much more dangerous everyday - your driving
anaology is a good one here - >without a thought, but are afraid of a
computer? Pah-leeze! I never saw a computer >kill anyone.
The problem here is probably the techs that complain about the workload and
the fact that a computer is rather expensive for most people. That you in
reailty can't mess much up so it's unfixable seem to have escaped may users
- but that I blaim the "courses" that the companys let the users go. "Point
there" and "Click there" is all they learn, never anything creative. It's
strange that people accept being treated as children i that way.
Boanne wrote:
>So with DOS the scenario goes something like this:
>1) Download a file.
>2) Unzip it.
>3) Scan it.
>4) Run it.
>5) Scan it again. (Note: The reason for the second scan is that some
viruses cannot be >detected until the executable is run.
>6) Periodic (weekly works for me) scans just in case. My scanner is the
>free-for-individual-use FPROT and it takes about 2 minutes to scan all my
drives. It >scans a single directory in the blink of an eye.
Boanne if you aren't aware you can scan most ZIP files with f-prot. I must
say that scanning my system takes more time (and requires me to exit and
start the scanning again (starting from ex. i:) since I have so many files)
- but then I'm stupid enough to choose "scan all" - batvirus.all is
actually id as having a virus since the last six months (BAT/Nice) so they
are updating the DOS part of the virus database.
Also to everyone that took time in this "debate" about the "virus" - do you
really think that you accomplished anything complaining about things on the
list? Complayning about Windows here is just like telling people "You must
become a member of our church" when they are already members (well I do
complain about Windows at every opportunity as well but the recent ammount
of mails was way out of hand for something as trivial as this).
Instead of complayning to each other we should go out and tell people "in
the real world" some of these things (but perhaps a little nicer put so
they listen to what we say instead of only hearing us getting angry).
Myself I sent a letter to the local paper that got printed concerning this
"virus" and how users might prevent spreading/getting it.
To unsubscribe from SURVPC send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
unsubscribe SURVPC in the body of the message.
Also, trim this footer from any quoted replies.
More info can be found at;
http://www.softcon.com/archives/SURVPC.html
