Just curious who still pays for anti-virus protection these days. Why or why not?
I don't I find that there are free programs out there that offer just as good protection as some of the leading brands.
I use Malwarebytes (free version) and MS Security Essentials, and I have never had a problem. Maybe because I stay away from sites that you can't really trust.
I don't see the upside of buying something that there are multiple free programs that do the same thing.
Is it something that mainly just the people that don't know much about computers that are easily manipulated that pay $100 USD a year to protect their computer? Sure I don't get all the add ons that the software comes with since I use the free version, but I would never use it anyway.
Just curious who still pays for anti-virus protection these days.
What's anti-virus protection?
And why would anyone in their right mind pay...and pay...and pay...for it? And continue using a so-called OS that's rife with viruses, adware, malware, spyware...and needs third-party 'protection' as a result?
I just brought this up because someone was arguing with me that because their antivirus software they buy is $100 each year its better than mine thats free every year. I just don't get paying for it especially annually after a few years you could buy a new pc with what you save.
Device(s): EVO 4g, EVO 4G LTE, Nexus S, Galaxy Nexus, S3, Nexus 7
Carrier: Not Provided
Thanks: 9,292
Thanked 9,263 Times in 5,270 Posts
Re: Who still buys anti-virus software
Quote:
Originally Posted by pbf98
lol didn't even see that contradiction I made!
I just brought this up because someone was arguing with me that because their antivirus software they buy is $100 each year its better than mine thats free every year. I just don't get paying for it especially annually after a few years you could buy a new pc with what you save.
If they're spending $100 I can see your side of it, but $15 to cover my whole family is no big deal for me. I know they're covered and I dont have to deal with it.
Its ironic how my Macafee anti virus starting senting me virus alerts, about a month before subscription was due.
Its was also ironic how their price offer kept dropping as it got closer to renewal date.
It was also ironic that I never ever ever signed up for auto renewal and yet they charged my card, said oops when I called and questioned it and said it would be two weeks to rectify so they have your money for free for two weeks.
Its was bs like that that I decided to go free.
I went to CNET, read the reviews and selected Avast Free. Been using it for 7 months and it works great. It has stopped malware and virus from my computer. They have a premium pay edition but they do not hassle you about it. Once in a while a short blurp pops up and then goes away.
PS, I love IOBIT products as well - defrag and malware hard drive cleaner software that is free too. Uninstaller, the whole nine yards. They too have a premium version and again do not hassle you about it.
i have not used anti-virus since the 1990s. nowadays you got to be real dim to get a virus. the most common are trojans, and most get on your computer by visiting very questionable sites, clicking pop-up ads, or visiting torrent or warez sites. the last time a family member of mine got one was when my grandmother accidentally clicked one of those flash ads that pop up on some sites as she was Googling and it installed a virus that redirected to porn everytime you typed in an URL, changed her desktop wallpaper, and only booted the machine into safe mode, it was disguised as an antivirus software, called 'Win Anti-virus 2012' and in the end her computer wouldn't even boot--it even got the recovery partition. i fixed it with Puppy Linux (and she's the only other family member using *nix besides me) but she clicked the ad thinking it would dismiss it (she has poor eyesight and missed the little, awfully tiny 'x' button) but really you'd have enough protection using a firewall and common sense regardless of the OS you choose.
most malware has gone the way of the dinosaur. i do remember the Klez Worm, the Blaster Worm (would always shut down the system) and Bonzi Buddy! i also remember how vulnerable it was to have auto message preview in Outlook/Outlook Express. but those days are a bit done now. using P2P software (uTorrent, Bearshare, is limewire and KAZAA still going?) is the only other means i know of to get viruses, if you're into that kind of thing.
the last time I got a virus was also my own doing--it was my first Windows 7 laptop--and, you guessed it, i was on TPB using uTorrent. the next morning sure, the ISO had downloaded but my computer kept spamming multiple IE windows with pop-up ads every few seconds, until it ran out of RAM and locked up or BSoD'd. it's running Linux now
i also uninstall Norton, McAffee or any other program that comes out of box with new computers. mostly because it keeps blocking my games from accessing the internet (come on, Norton! Star Trek Online is NOT a 'questionable software!') and generally slows down the system
Malwarebytes free + Comodo Enterprise here.
I use Comodo because I can manage it centrally across the 5 Windows machines on my home network and because it's free for up to 10 machines
Comodo free Firewall & A/V for when I absolutely have to (reluctantly) use Windows.
The rest of the time it's Linux. I can see a valid reason for using A/V in Linux. That's to scan ffiles & attachemtns you get via Email/Dropbox etc before passing the on to windows users.
My total of Linux converts so 2012/13 = Plumber, retired lady, door security guy at a nightclub and half a dozen fellow students.
Linux evangelist? Who, Me?
most malware has gone the way of the dinosaur. i do remember the Klez Worm, the Blaster Worm (would always shut down the system) and Bonzi Buddy! i also remember how vulnerable it was to have auto message preview in Outlook/Outlook Express. but those days are a bit done now.
There's Conficker, CodeRed, Nimda, etc...I know them. Malware, trojans, worms and viruses are still very common here in China, and in SE Asia in general. I tend to only use my own PCs if I can help it...I'm basically TNO...Trust No One...when it comes to computers and operating systems....especially Microsoft.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nickdalzell
using P2P software (uTorrent, Bearshare, is limewire and KAZAA still going?) is the only other means i know of to get viruses, if you're into that kind of thing.
I think Kazaa, LimeWire and Grokster were sued out of existance by the RIAA and MPAA, and domains seized by the US Govt. Bearshare seems to be a legal content destributor now. uTorrent is an open source bittorrent client. There are many other bittorrent clients as well. Many legal things are destributed via bittorrent, e.g. Linux distros. I frequently use the Transmission bittorrent client for my teaching materials. ISPs can filter bittorrent and block access to bittorrent trackers if they think they're been used for illegal purposes. People have been sued for downloading/uploading copyright infringing content with bittorrent as well.
__________________
The People's Guide to Android in the People's Republic.
Honorary Grand Poobah Shenzhen University English Corner. http://welcometomychina.tumblr.com/ There are nine million bicycles in Beijing.
There are nine million Androids in Shenzhen.
Last edited by mikedt; January 18th, 2013 at 04:20 PM.
Just curious who still pays for anti-virus protection these days. Why or why not?
My work computer will never see one single email message or unknown document. It will never connect to the internet, so I could care less about the virus issues. I am absolutely virus free and there is no way I can get infected.
Some Linux converts tell us that Linux is perfectly safe. No chance of a virus. Is this really true?
I do know that I can run four different scanners and find problems the previous session(s) did not find. Some malware crops up from time to time that was not discovered by the programs I ran to protect my day to day PC from malware and BHOs.
It takes several different scanners as well as regular def file updates. staying safe can be a full time job.
Device(s): EVO 4g, EVO 4G LTE, Nexus S, Galaxy Nexus, S3, Nexus 7
Carrier: Not Provided
Thanks: 9,292
Thanked 9,263 Times in 5,270 Posts
Re: Who still buys anti-virus software
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Maxey
My work computer will never see one single email message or unknown document. It will never connect to the internet, so I could care less about the virus issues. I am absolutely virus free and there is no way I can get infected.
Some Linux converts tell us that Linux is perfectly safe. No chance of a virus. Is this really true?
It's safety is in the fact that it's such a small market share.
i do recall Kazaa being out of the box with trojans and other ad/malware. even its own fake 'anti-virus' client, all of which, at least from what i saw at the time, 'required' in order to install it. i used to use Bearshare in place of Napster when it went belly up, back when i used to burn the fire out of CDs for playing in my car--but now Android apps and the wireless FM modulators have made that a thing of the past. but then Bearshare had version 6 come out, which gave you only 5 free downloads then it made you pay- so i downgraded finding out it never worked anymore. that was the day i found Android/iOS apps (starting with simple youtube downloaders) to do the job for me--it started with that Coby tablet, then an iPod touch, and so on.
so far there is not many means for Linux to get a virus. most virii are designed for Windows and it's much easier for an ad online to behind-the-scenes download an *.EXE and launch it from a simple script (i wrote my own virus back during DOS/Win3.11 just to prove how easy it was--a simple batch file that automatically ran fdisk /mbr and script-rebooted the computer where it would complain about a missing OS) and since Linux lacks that simple EXE format and most Linux programs are usually *.gz or *.tgz files, with binaries being *.RPM or *.DEB and so on, not many viruses are going to exist that will install easily. that and despite all the product placement and advantages, Linux still holds only 1-5% of the desktop/laptop market of consumer tech (not counting servers/businesses here). in such, Linux can be considered its own anti-virus software.
It's safety is in the fact that it's such a small market share.
Linux based OSs on PCs that is. Most PCs run Windows of course.
Android(uses the Linux kernel) that certainly has a huge market share for smart and mobile devices, and malware definitely exists for that. But AFAIK it's always the users who have to do something to get their Android devices infected by malware, like installing malicious apps or whatever.
Last edited by mikedt; January 18th, 2013 at 06:23 PM.
so far there is not many means for Linux to get a virus. most virii are designed for Windows and it's much easier for an ad online to behind-the-scenes download an *.EXE and launch it from a simple script (i wrote my own virus back during DOS/Win3.11 just to prove how easy it was--a simple batch file that automatically ran fdisk /mbr and script-rebooted the computer where it would complain about a missing OS) and since Linux lacks that simple EXE format and most Linux programs are usually *.gz or *.tgz files, with binaries being *.RPM or *.DEB and so on,
Actually they're all archiving, packaging and compression formats, just like zip, rar, 7Z, etc. They can contain anything, source code, binaries, scripts, images, etc. Adobe's proprietary Flash for Linux can be downloaded in yum, tar.gz, apt, deb and rpm, and they all contain the same binary executables. Same with proprietary Nvidia and ATI video drivers.
Linux and other *NIX OS executables don't have to have any file suffix at all, to tell the OS what it is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nickdalzell
not many viruses are going to exist that will install easily. that and despite all the product placement and advantages, Linux still holds only 1-5% of the desktop/laptop market of consumer tech (not counting servers/businesses here). in such, Linux can be considered its own anti-virus software.
I'm only installing software from the repos, or sources that I trust, like Google for Chrome, Adobe for Flash, AMD/ATI for video drivers, etc. I'm sure many other desktop/laptop Linux users do likewise, or they're compiling their applications and possibly the OS itself from source code.
Some Windows users just install software willy nilly, because it looks pretty, has a talking purple gorilla or something....and often Android(Linux) users will do the same as well. If you're careful and don't do that kind of thing, only install software from sources you trust, and keep Windows up to date and patched. I'm sure you can be safe with Windows. Unlike ahem....China! That's what happens when pretty much the whole country is running on pirated XP Professional with IE6.
China has a significant Android malware problem with malicious, usually pirated apps. Which makes it not much different to Windows here. Google certainly has no control of what goes on with Android here.
*Mobile should be excluded here because phones are not as easily addressable and in the case of Android run another stack over the kernel, not the Linux OS in its entirety.
Incidentally Linux also run 90% of the worlds 500 fastest supercomputers.
i was specifically referring to consumer end of the market. laptops, desktops, home computers. Linux so far, much like UNIX, has seemed only to take up the supercomputer, mainframe, minicomputer and other markets not related at all to what Microsoft has taken over. in the home computer market, it barely exists sadly. i would like to believe otherwise but when even mentioning its name i often get 'Linux?! what's that?' or 'oh that free operating system? it still exists?'
when I used windows I used a combination of a powerful scanning program and a less powerful live protection service, usually microsoft security essentials and malwarebytes. If I have, or think I have a virus, I'll go to safe mode and scan with malwarebytes to get rid of it. For general usage I had microsoft security essentials running. I went 8 months without getting a virus, and the only reason that ended was because I killed my hard drive and had to install linux instead.
When I have Windows on my computers I run Avast & Malwarebytes, that's it.
I wouldn't run Norton or McAfee on my systems if they were free. They probably was causing half of viruses coming out.
With Windows and Linux, one difference is, majority of linux users have to create a separate user account from Admin(root). Windows users mostly run it in Admin mode, big mistake and part of the reason Windows is prone to viruses etc.
If a virus infect a linux desktop user, it is contained in that users home directory and not able to access vital system files, etc.
__________________
"One Nation Under A Groove"
The Following User Says Thank You to saptech For This Useful Post:
User account control was the worst thing MS could do. i wonder how long before people just dismissed them by simply clicking 'yes' to them thus ruining any such security they possibly could have offered? i mean they were excessive, one would pop up for something like setting the clock, or changing the desktop background. they were so numorous they just got dismissed...
i was specifically referring to consumer end of the market. laptops, desktops, home computers. Linux so far, much like UNIX, has seemed only to take up the supercomputer, mainframe, minicomputer and other markets not related at all to what Microsoft has taken over. in the home computer market, it barely exists sadly.
But it's changing though, and rapidly AFAICT. People might not be buying the traditional Windows PCs and laptops for domestic use. they might be buying Android tablets(Linux), Android netbooks and laptops(Linux), Chromebooks(Linux), Apple iPads, Macs(UNIX), Android TVs(Linux), smart STBs(Linux), etc. Microsoft has changed as well....Windows RT. It's a locked down walled garden, approved and curated software only. Just like iOS. It should be extremely difficult to get malware and malicious software into Windows RT, unless it's rooted or jailbroken.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nickdalzell
i would like to believe otherwise but when even mentioning its name i often get 'Linux?! what's that?' or 'oh that free operating system? it still exists?'
Think that's an old argument or a geek thing. Mention "Linux" to many Android users, they'll probably say the same thing. LOL. With the Ubuntu laptops available here, they don't have "Linux" anywhere on them, they have "Ubuntu operating system" or "Ubuntu OS", along with the Ubuntu logo. Tux is nowhere to be seen.
And why would anyone in their right mind pay...and pay...and pay...for it? And continue using a so-called OS that's rife with viruses, adware, malware, spyware...and needs third-party 'protection' as a result?
Its "rife" because it's targeted. Lets face it, you can't cripple a bank or government by writing a virus for linux.
I love Linux and use it as my daily driver, although I do have command line AVG running in the background.
I'm careful anyway though.
I only use windows as a VM to handle things that Ubuntu (including wine) cannot do so I don't have an AV. When I did, I did pay for it. Simply because at that time, things like Nod32, BitDefender, Kaspersky WERE better than free versions. I always used to keep a close eye on the PcPro Labs tests, until Avira became the 2nd best AV - which was free.
__________________ "I am only responsible for what I say. Not for what you understand"
There were 441 new malicious programs consisting of Viruses, Trojans, worms and other malware, in 2005 alone. There's nothing in the wild as theres not a lot of point targeting linux as it doesn't really cause much disruption.
...it's the computer equivalent of putting dog crap in a brown paper bag and setting it on fire on the door step of an empty house then ringing the bell.
i was specifically referring to consumer end of the market. laptops, desktops, home computers. Linux so far, much like UNIX, has seemed only to take up the supercomputer, mainframe, minicomputer and other markets not related at all to what Microsoft has taken over. in the home computer market, it barely exists sadly. i would like to believe otherwise but when even mentioning its name i often get 'Linux?! what's that?' or 'oh that free operating system? it still exists?'
Indeed, and it's an important distinction.
However at least some malware doesn't concern itself with whether it is attacking a server or home user.
Phishing = OS independent Trojan = More likely desktop/laptop, to a lesser degree affects servers Spyware = More likely desktop/laptop, to a lesser degree affects servers Virus = equal opportunity employer
It's the last one that's hardest to protect against, though thankfully the least able to be exploited. The rest a user such as yourself would likely be able to avoid without AV, just by using common sense.
And as for viruses, I would say keeping a system up to date, keeping a good firewall running, and network security = good habits for ANY OS.
Device(s): HTC G1, HTC G2, LG G2x, Nokia N900, HTC Amaze, Nexus 4
Carrier: T-Mobile USA
Thanks: 1,201
Thanked 388 Times in 334 Posts
Re: Who still buys anti-virus software
Quote:
Originally Posted by SUroot
Sure, right now - nothing in the wild.
There were 441 new malicious programs consisting of Viruses, Trojans, worms and other malware, in 2005 alone. There's nothing in the wild as theres not a lot of point targeting linux as it doesn't really cause much disruption.
Again, that's a common misconception. Linux is a minor player on the desktop, but dominant in servers which is where the really valuable data is and in large quantities. For example, over 90% of financial records worldwide are on Linux or Unix servers.
There is some Linux malware out there. Not all malware is a virus and viruses are by far the most dangerous type of malware. But there are NO Linux viruses active in the wild. Not because of lack of market share or not enough valuable data on Linux machines to be worth the effort - see above.
The reason there are no Linux viruses is because a virus *cannot* propagate on Linux *unless* the user is stupid enough to run as root. Fortunately, few are. Not running as root also foils most other types of malware.
Think that's an old argument or a geek thing. Mention "Linux" to many Android users, they'll probably say the same thing. LOL. With the Ubuntu laptops available here, they don't have "Linux" anywhere on them, they have "Ubuntu operating system" or "Ubuntu OS", along with the Ubuntu logo. Tux is nowhere to be seen.
Wasn't there a few badges awhile back that had Tux on them? powered by Linux?
Last edited by nickdalzell; January 19th, 2013 at 01:37 PM.
Again, that's a common misconception. Linux is a minor player on the desktop, but dominant in servers which is where the really valuable data is and in large quantities. For example, over 90% of financial records worldwide are on Linux or Unix servers.
Not sure where you are getting your statistics from.
Sure, we have a few CentOS boxes here. Many government organisations that I have been contracted too will have the odd Linux server. Having worked for major American electronic payments companies, I'm aware that there is a lot of Unix out there. There is also a lot of (believe it or not) mainframe still around too. In fact, one company I worked for (that I legally cannot mention) had all their high end customers on mainframe because for them it was more reliable than any other platform.
But throwing Linux into a "Linux and unix" category simply means linux is stealing Unix's statistics. Linux is not Unix and its unfair to lump it in. Sure, its designed similarly and uses the same commands (because Linux is a unix clone) but from a relationship perspective, Mac is more Unix than Linux. Most Unix stuff will not run in Linux and vica versa. They are not synonymous.
So no, 90% of the worlds financial information is not "on" linux boxes. In fact, probably none of it is, because generally the organisations that have the bigger proportion of that data don't store data on servers anyway. They have SANs for that.
I know you love Linux. I do too. But lets not paint a false picture. Linux is not unix. Linux is out there but almost exclusively on multi platform domains, meaning if you attack Linux, you still have to attack windows to do the damage. Almost all single platform domains are windows. This makes attacking them not only easier, but more "rewarding".
Don't get me wrong, it certainly is much harder to infect Linux. Added to that, spreading viruses is hard too see every distro has massive proprietary elements. For example, there may be 3-4 different installers for one application to cover every distro. So its hard to write a virus that is inter-distro compatible. This makes it less of a target as its significantly more effort for significantly less gain.
I do specialise in IT support, although not directly in Linux but much of what you are citing as misconceptions are actually opinions based in experience. I may not be as technical as other members of this forum, but I do have a real understanding of blue chip, financial, government corporate IT systems as well as those of technology development companies too. It's not like I'm just plucking opinions out of the air.
The company I work for now deals with software built on Linux platforms. The Operating systems we produce surround linux kernels. Linux is our bread and butter.... but 75% of the organisation (excluding firewalls) is windows.
Device(s): HTC G1, HTC G2, LG G2x, Nokia N900, HTC Amaze, Nexus 4
Carrier: T-Mobile USA
Thanks: 1,201
Thanked 388 Times in 334 Posts
Re: Who still buys anti-virus software
Name one true virus affecting Linux that is possible to 'catch' - i.e. in the wild, on the loose. Not other malware or proof of concept exercises - a real, on the loose Linux virus.
Wasn't there a few badges awhile back that had Tux on them? powered by Linux?
I know that one. "GNU/Linux" is techinally the correct title for a Linux kernel based OS. Because a typical distro is the Linux kernel along with GNU software.
But I'm sure Canonical wants to focus on their own branding for their own products. The Ubuntu Operating System. It's actually rather difficult to find the word "Linux" on the Ubuntu website.
Last edited by mikedt; January 19th, 2013 at 09:54 PM.
Just curious who still pays for anti-virus protection these days.
I do, for one.
Quote:
Why or why not?
I've never picked up a virus/trojan/malware and intend to maintain that record. Unfortunately I don't always have the luxury of being able to avoid suspicious sites/links.
Quote:
I don't see the upside of buying something that there are multiple free programs that do the same thing.
I use both; second (or more) opinions are helpful and avoid false positives.
I never thought about footprint, but since Microsoft has a vested interest in protecting its flagship product from exploits, it follows that they'd be highly motivated to offer the best anti-malware product. Plus they have access to the Windows source code!
Device(s): HTC G1, HTC G2, LG G2x, Nokia N900, HTC Amaze, Nexus 4
Carrier: T-Mobile USA
Thanks: 1,201
Thanked 388 Times in 334 Posts
Re: Who still buys anti-virus software
Quote:
Originally Posted by Speed Daemon
I never thought about footprint, but since Microsoft has a vested interest in protecting its flagship product from exploits, it follows that they'd be highly motivated to offer the best anti-malware product. Plus they have access to the Windows source code!
You would think so. But tests have shown the M$ stuff is not real good.
You would think so. But tests have shown the M$ stuff is not real good.
Linux user #266351. Android since v1.0
Oh bollocks and bumpkiss.
MS products are tested daily, by tens of millions the world over and MS passes the test almost every toime, Those that have problems likely have problems fitting Tab A into Slot B.
Unless you are being silly and you just hate MS, then I see where you are coming from. You Linux Fanbois are all the same. Join the Linux revolution and suddenly, MS sucks.
You Linux converts are like people switching from a dumb phone to Android. Suddenly Android RULES, Apple sucks. Get a grip, MS makes good crapola to be sure.
Like by pappy use to say . . "We buy 'em books and they eat the pages."
Just curious who still pays for anti-virus protection these days. Why or why not?
I don't I find that there are free programs out there that offer just as good protection as some of the leading brands.
I use Malwarebytes (free version) and MS Security Essentials, and I have never had a problem. Maybe because I stay away from sites that you can't really trust.
I don't see the upside of buying something that there are multiple free programs that do the same thing.
Is it something that mainly just the people that don't know much about computers that are easily manipulated that pay $100 USD a year to protect their computer? Sure I don't get all the add ons that the software comes with since I use the free version, but I would never use it anyway.
i have a love/hate relationship with Linux and Windows, and Android both. i have a few Apple devices, which i find work smoother than the same task in Android. i have computers running Linux which run faster than Windows and are more resistant to malware, but sometimes cause me massive migraines as some things done in Linux end up being triple harder than Windows. i use Android devices out in the field at work as they are disposable and easily replaced if broken, unlike their Apple rivals. so they each have advantages and disadvantages. i am no fanboy. there is nothing good about being a fanboy of Android or Apple, or Xbox or PS3. in the end it is up to whatever the one person chooses. i never understood all the hate that Xbox users have, or vice versa, someone chooses a different device than you prefer or think is better. boo hoo. it is not up to you to decide which is best for them
quite frankly i am glad we even have choices. if everyone ran Linux and Android we would have a boring, diversity-free world. a world of literal Borg. personally i am glad there is the choice of so many OSs meant for so many different people. if they like Apple, fine. if they like Microsoft, fine. if they like Google, fine. no company is 'evil' no matter what you want to believe. they exist to make a profit, like any other business. i myself have all sorts of products, from all of them. Microsoft makes my Xbox. Sony makes my PS3. Apple makes my iPad. many make distros of Linux. so what? it's up to the person to choose. i would not want choices taken away since neither are harming anyone. so please, stuff it with all the 'Apple/MS/Linux is evil' stuff ok?
brand loyalty may have meant something in the 1980s when you could buy a Curtis Mathes American-Made TV that you knew was going to last some two decades before going out, unlike a China-made clone. but today, everything no matter what is made in the same hut of child-labor in China or Japan. brand loyalty today just makes you a pompous moron, not worthy of bragging.
yes, companies make mistakes. we all do. Microsoft blew it with Windows ME. so what? Apple blew it with the Mac Cube. they blew it with having zero memory protection in Classic MacOS. is that really worth making fun of? let's see you do something perfect then we'll talk
MS products are tested daily, by tens of millions the world over and MS passes the test almost every toime, Those that have problems likely have problems fitting Tab A into Slot B.
China can be like that Bob. So often I've found that using MS products here is not so good. I would never enter any passwords, private information or heaven forbid do online banking on any computers here, but my own.
A good example recently. I bought a new Lenovo laptop from the local official Lenovo dealership. Turned out the Windows 7 Ultimate it came with was pirated and with no way to activate it. PCs here come with crippled Starter or Home Basic versions of Windows, Chinese only. They thought they where doing me a favour.
Can't buy genuine Windows as a stand-alone product in China. It's only officially sold with new PCs. I was able to buy Windows 8, but only because I have a UK credit card, and bought a Windows activation key via MS United Kingdom. I put Linux Mint on it as well, and that's what I use mostly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Maxey
Unless you are being silly and you just hate MS, then I see where you are coming from. You Linux Fanbois are all the same. Join the Linux revolution and suddenly, MS sucks.
You Linux converts are like people switching from a dumb phone to Android. Suddenly Android RULES, Apple sucks. Get a grip, MS makes good crapola to be sure.
Like by pappy use to say . . "We buy 'em books and they eat the pages."
I'm not a fanboy. I use both Windows and Linux. But I like to be able to trust my computers not to be spying on me.
23Likes
Who still buys anti-virus software
That's what happens when pretty much the whole country is running on pirated XP Professional with IE6. 
