Activity for October 24

Review - Advanced SystemCare Free
5.0.0.0 Beta 3 (Oct 24, 2011)

I've used this program since it's inception, and it's come a LONG way.
While their tactics on the whole MBAM thing may or may not be legitimate, THIS program works as intended without stepping on anyone's toes and in fact is one of 3 programs that I actually trust in my business to help mitigate problems that my customers have created.

ASC alongside CCleaner Enhanced, the olden ATF Cleaner and the even older Spider are all I need to remove every bad monkey from a client's system.

ANYONE that's using this program - or any program like it - to "speed up their system" ...is using it wrong. ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS look at what it's wanting to remove - go through *every* line and see if the removal is justified, see if every registry change is needed and if not, simply uncheck it.
Thing is, these programs can (and often are) the exact reason for most people's problems. Most people install and run registry cleaners and memory boosters because they've been lead to believe that they will increase their system speed, making it more efficient, etc. - but those in the know, know better.

These tools are very valuable for what they do - clean up residual junk. And this tool in specific, has yet to leave a system I've run it on (in the hundreds) crippled in any way.

The new ASC 5 Beta 3 loads up quicker, scans faster, and has found several entries that even v4 wasn't capable of finding, and for that, I give it 4 stars.
That elusive 5th star is reserved for the day that Iobit (or someone) creates a program that not only gets rid of all the junk in a system (including ALL the INDEX.DAT files) with a DOD9 wipe, but also is able to find every registry entry for every program that's been uninstalled and no longer needed. To date, no program has accomplished this feat, but ASC is getting closer.

IMO, if ASC were to incorporate the extendability of CCleaner Enhanced AND the ability to remove index.dat files like Spider, it will be even closer to that 5-star mark.

Overall, ASC has grown up to be quite the useful tool and I'm not ditching it any time soon.
Review - Patch My PC
2.0.0 Beta 1 (Sep 2, 2011)

@CyberDoc: While I agree that ninite has it's place, this utility is actually easier because you don't have to update your USB stick every other day... this program downloads and installs the most important things all by itself.

Now for the review:
This program does exactly what it says.
I fully appreciate the new ability to remove specific programs from being downloaded and installed (i.e. Firefox) - not all the programs that were being downloaded and installed automatically were needed.

This program is a GODSEND to the computer repair industry. Previous to this, I had to use Ninite or Ketarin to keep the main programs updated that I needed every day. This program literally saves me 15 minutes on EVERY computer I work on... that works out to 300 minutes per day on average that I don't have to spend physically clicking buttons to install programs that are needed on new builds - like Flash, Reader, Java, etc.
Review - McAfee Stinger (32-bit)
10.2.0.168 (Jul 10, 2011)

Detection rate isn't as high as I had hoped. But, this, run in combination with Malwarebytes and SAS (and then followed up with CF if necessary) really just made my life easier - my malware computer throughput just increased twofold!

As for running an .exe file while infected, you don't have to do it in Safe Mode, or use RKILL, KILLBOX or any other type extra, just simply rename the .exe file to a .com file and run it like normal!
(i.e. programname.EXE to programname.COM) Windows will run it like it's an executable file (because it is!)
Review - D7
3.8.5 Beta (Jul 3, 2011)

This is turning out to be a very good tool for computer repair on-the-fly.
If you have all the required components, it's really quite an excellent tool that can only get better.

To the devs: May I suggest working in the GUI for Sysinternals Suite?
Aside from that, this program has obviously taken on a life of it's own and development is surging forward in a very nice, progressive manner.

To someguy: REALLY? If you're not in the computer repair industry, please don't bother to even download any computer repair products, let alone rate them.
Do you, as a potential "computer repair specialist", see a problem with a program that needs to be run on a potentially infected machine - missing it's "installer" Who creates an installer/uninstaller for a program that clearly needs to be run from a portable device (USB or CD/DVD)???

To anyone reading some guy's post, please do yourself a favor and read his other ratings and posts and you'll get a better idea of what I'm talking about..
Review - Unlocker
1.9.1 (Apr 14, 2011)

Only someone like Lysa (Phat Esther) would give 1 star for missing a download link... that's NOT MISSING. That is clearly not a review for a program, it's a sign that Lysa forgot to clear her (his?) cookies and clear cache...

Seriously - someone needs to start a petition to ban intellectually-compromised people like Phat Esther from voting or even posting at all. Nonsensical reviews, broken English and a horrible lack of common sense are all traits that are despised in the real world, but are condoned here for some reason. When I'm God, the B& Hammer will fall hard on people like this.

To everyone else: Just click on Phat Esther's name and read other 'reviews' that they have done for other products. Then you'll see that NO ONE SHOULD REFER TO PHAT ESTHER'S REVIEWS for anything. It's all nonsense and ego-based self-fulfilling prophecy of 1-star reviews that don't make any sense.

As for Unlocker, it works perfectly, just as it always has. The new UI elements are welcome, but not as much as the new ability to remove deep directories. This little program as ALWAYS been a Godsend!

Thank you, Cedrick for creating an excellent program that does exactly what it's supposed to!
Comment - Apple patches, does not acknowledge, iOS malware vulnerabilities
1.9.1 (Jul 17, 2011 - 3:41 PM)

Roland Jefferson, aka "internetworld7" is nothing more than someone sticking up for his favorite computer manufacturer (I read his other reviews - some might call him a fanboi, but whatever), he has little or no idea that viruses/malware for OSX/iOS are actually real. He's actually serious with his comment, OR he's completely delusional.

Hey Roland: Read much? You're new to this whole computer thing, aren't you. I'll fill you in...
I've been repairing computers since malware was written ONLY for Apple products. Back in the Apple ][ days, viruses replicated via floppy disc (which were actually FLOPPY, not 1.5MB "hard" floppy discs). Then Mac came along, and guess what? Nothing changed but the users and their egos. Then came the internetz...

OSX and iOS are not impenetrable, hence the need to patch them by the very people that develop them.
You don't really think that your illustrious leaders would create a patch just to blow smoke up your Mac/iTool for nothing, do you?? They're patching security vulnerabilities for a reason!

Fact is, ANY operating system is vulnerable to attack. Market share dictates who the malware coders wite their malicious code for. Apple has caught the attention of these guys. So has Android...
(did you realize that UNIX and LINUX are brethren? Your iPhone or Mac isn't so different from my Mint/Fedora or Droid, and even THOSE can be infected)

"Apple doesn't acknowledge any malware vulnerabilities because they don't exist. There are only two platforms that do not have nay malware whatsoever: Mac OS X & iOS. The safest platforms to date."

You've obviously been under a rock for the last 30 years...
Here, I'll help you out: http://www.betanews.com/...malware&x=0&y=0
(it's a quick site-search for mac malware...and shows a bunch of articles written RIGHT HERE at BetaNews about malware Trojans, Backdoors, Fake Antiviruses, etc. - all written for OSX.

Good luck with that...
Comment - LulzSec attacks Brazilian government sites
1.9.1 (Jun 22, 2011 - 10:46 PM)

Exactly how many is a Brazilian??
Comment - ATI seeks to break back into the GPU game with barrier-breaking cards
1.9.1 (Jun 27, 2008 - 1:01 PM)

^ How so? I've owned every ATi card since the 9500 Pro (including every version - i.e. Pro, XT, XTX) and have *never* had any problems. And, the same could be said about any of nVidia's cards as well...there are plenty of people that have had nothing but 'troublesome' cards along with nothing but perfect experiences from the Green corner...it's not just ATi buddy.
Not discounting that you have had issues before, but don't you think that your experiences might have been unique? After all, ATi wouldn't be in business at all if all they made was 'troublesome' cards...plus, if you do *any* amount of research, ATi owners are just as happy as nVidia owners.

I'm personally holding out for the 4870X2 card. I'll be getting 4 of them and hybrid-crossfiring all 4 of them on my M3A32-MVP. We'll talk then...

Psychlone
Comment - Microsoft Adds 26 Terabytes to Virtual Earth
1.9.1 (Jul 6, 2007 - 11:47 PM)

I have NO idea how they had satellite images in the 10's, but I just looked up my restaurant that I only live 2 blocks from, and everything West of our Main St. was fields. My house was built in 1912 and wasn't on the map, my restaurant was built in 1938 and it wasn't on the map. I said that everything West of Main St. was fields, right? Well, our University was founded in 1908, and there's nothing but fields where the University *should* be.
So, my big question is this: How is it even possible to have a map from 23 miles above that is possibly from 1908 or before? They didn't even have *airplanes* then, let alone the ability to take photos from that high!
I can zoom in to no closer than 300 yards, and I recognize the terrain, some of the oldest buildings that still stand on our 'Historic Downtown Main St.' are there, but most everything around Main St. is fields!!! I know I'm not in the wrong location...I've lived here for 35 years and know my town.

Google is at least showing maps of this area from the last decade.
Comment - ICANN Rejects '.xxx' Domain Again
1.9.1 (Mar 30, 2007 - 3:44 PM)

But wouldnt it be easier to block children from viewing porn if they ALL were mandated to change to the .XXX urls?

I guess that I just don't understand this, it seems that as a society, we'd rather our kids look at violence and sex through video games than actually teach them about it.

IMO, if *all* porn was to have a .XXX url, then it would make it easier on parents to block from their firewalls, etc...instead, it makes it look like our governing body is 'condoning' porn instead of 'corralling' it. - How stupid is THAT?

Just for your info, I'm not against porn, I'm against children viewing it.

Psychlone