re: Unable to reply to C.K.
Wednesday, December 12, 2007 at 9:49 am
Windows Me Annoyances Discussion Forum
Posted by C K
(5923 messages posted)
Yes, this forum is a little different. Would be nice if there was a standard format
that everyone conformed to..
The log created by the malware scanner(s) won't contain any personal identifiable
information, and if they do, it would be spyware that you need to get rid of anyway,
but it is a good idea to always inspect it before sending it to anyone. Frankly,
spyware is changing and getting more serious all the time so it is what is leaving
your computer that you don't know about that is the more serious concern.
The logs I speak of are necessary so that the people who locate and identify spyware
and help you deal with it can see what is running on your computer. We don't specialize
in malware issues here so you wouldn't be sending the log to this site, but a few
people here do help on those other malware sites where they help people who have
been infected. It would be like a doctor trying to diagnose a problem more easily
if he can take an XRay if you let him, versus trying to diagnose something if you
wouldn't let him take that XRay. The only way that you can identify and deal with
malware on your computer is to "see" it, and the logs from utilities like HijackThis
are one way to "see" it. It is actually safer sending a log to them than having
someone physically putting their "hands on" your computer at a shop where you can't
see what they are doing to it. That, in my experience is the far more dangerious
scenerio that you can get into. I've found more viruses on shop repaired machines
than I care to think about.
Personally for Win 9X, when I run into these types of problems, I prefer to just
reload the machine with Windows and update it. I only have one machine now with
Win 9X on it (Win 98SE) for testing purposes and I have a clean install inage that
I can dump on the hard drive in about 10 minutes so that I don't have to go through
the long install process and reloading all of the software. A second physical drive
has all of my data on it so it isn't effected. If not for this recovery type of
scenerio, I would spend way to many hours on maintenance of that machine but, sadly
for Win 9X it is a necessary process as Windows 95/98/ME just doesn't maintain itself
as does the NT operating systems (NT/2000/XP) which were developed for the business/corporate
world.
As for your error, in my experience, if it happens once, it will happen again. It
will just be a matter of time. The code can't troubleshoot and repair itself. We
aren't at that point in the computer world yet, until machines are significantly
more powerful and we have developed AI to the point where it can do it itself. But
at that point, we risk computers taking over the world and doing away with people!
;-)
On Wednesday, December 12, 2007 at 8:50 am, elmoticky wrote:
>C.K. My reply problem stemmed from habit I guess. Over at other forums that I have
>been lately
>a reply must be typed "under" a comment. Here
>at annoyances, it is on top! So there was my error.
>
>Anyway, to get back to my Kernell issue. I think I
>have a pretty good idea what causes this error to
>pop-up on my screen.
>
>You see, I noticed that It pops-up wherever I click
>to another page while the one I am reading has not
>closed. By that I mean that I can see on the bottom left hand side of my screen
the
>page trying
>to close while I click for another page.
>
>I might be wrong, but since I noticed that, I have
>waited until the "done" message appears before I
>click for another page. The result, no more errors.
>
>About your suggestion that you may be able to
>recommend some good technicians to help me with
>a problem, I think that I have a pretty good idea of
>what you talk about.
>
>While I have really appreciated the help that I have
>been given here at annoyances, and elsewhere, there is one issue that I feel uncomfortable
>with.
>
>That issue is sending my computer log to anyone so
>that they can scrutinize any errors and tell me what
>I have to do. Make no mistake C.K. like I said, I
>really depend on you guys for help. And while sending a log for inspection might
>seem O.K. for
>some folks, I am very uncomfortable...And it is not
>in the sense of mistrust. I am positive, that folks
>on the other end really trustworthy...It is just me C.K......
>
>Tell me what you think...I went through the issue
>that I just mentioned with respect to the log.
>
>Elmoticky
>
>
|
All messages in this thread [show all]
 | | | | |  | re: Unable to reply to C.K. (C K: Wed, Dec 12, 2007, 9:49 am) |
|
