Replies

I use Outlook 2010 and am not experiencing that issue. Go to File > Options and spend some time customizing Outlook for your use. The Mail section has a part for customizing Message format, which may help you.

Notwithstanding any impartiality concerns, is this not a very small sample size?

Consumer Reports magazine has been impartial since it began in 1936. That’s actually one of its core character traits. I used to work in the consumer research industry. Assuming a research survey is properly constructed, for a simple national survey to have statistically significant results, only 2,000 responses are required. I don’t know how many responses they get for their personal computer surveys, but given the number of responses I’ve seen for other surveys they did and how common personal computer ownership has become, my guess would be they get at least 100,000 responses, so more than enough to be accurate.

For those seeking a desktop computer, I would suggest you avoid the mass market brands and look at the brands made in the USA, some of which Lugh mentioned. I had a post about this last year: http://windowssecrets.com/forums/showthread//170615-Recommend-new-computer-for-Win10-What-s-out-there?p=1018593#post1018593

I’ve been a subscriber to Consumer Reports magazine for at least 20 years and during most of that time they have been tracking personal computer failure rates. They survey a large portion of their 7 million subscribers every year, or every other year, and the results have been rather consistent over the years. Apple has always been the most reliable with a failure rate around 7% – 10%. Windows computers have a failure rate ranging from 16% – 23%. For this year, the most reliable computers are the Apple MacBook Air and Apple Macbook Pro, with failure rates of 7% and 9%. The most unreliable computers are the HP Envy and Lenovo Y Series, with failure rates of 20% and 23%. During the first year of use, a Windows computer is three times more likely to fail than an Apple computer.

As Lugh mentioned, this contrast between Apple and Windows probably has a lot to do with price and quality strategies. Apple goes for quality and then charges a higher price, while the mass market Windows manufacturers go for lower prices and then lower the quality.

If it doesn’t show up it is not needed on your system. Don’t worry about it.

Thanks, I’ll go with that. “If it’s not broken, don’t fix it” seems to apply here.

The Dalai site is not definitive. They are hedging their bet. Just install them both and don’t worry about it. Install the older one first.

KB3102810 is currently not installed on my computer, but KB3138612 is. The concern I have is when I run Windows Update, KB3102810 doesn’t show up as Important, Recommended, or Optional. Since it doesn’t show up at all in Windows Update, that would seem to indicate it doesn’t belong on my computer.

Susan’s article says “There have been several Windows Update Client patches that should have helped solve the slow update scans. KB 3102810 (Nov. 3, 2015) was followed by March’s KB 3138612. Ensure that you have both installed; and check out a Dalai site that lists other patches that can help improve update-scanning speed.”

The Dalai website she linked to says “The following update is (most likely) not required if the Windows Update Client of December 2015 or later is already installed: KB3102810, reduces Update Agent’s CPU load.”

Could Susan clarify if this update is really needed, given what the Dalai website says?

Have you tried adjusting the characteristics of those items that display in the notification area? Right click on an empty part of the taskbar to get the menu > Properties > Taskbar tab > Notification area > Customize.

But most Windows 7 users don’t have Windows 7 Professional – only Home Basic or Home Premium.

I understand that, which is why in my initial post (#30) I started out with “for future reference,” since I was just offering a suggestion for the next time someone is thinking about purchasing a new computer.

and the process you’ve outlined, simple though it might be, would be beyond them.

Paul T in post #31 had a similar comment. Since you both have much more experience than I have with individual users, I have to assume you are right. It’s really surprising to me that the average user could not do this.

Setting up policies to prevent malware running is beyond most people’s ability.

I can only speak for Windows 7 Professional, where implementing the Software Restriction Policy is very easy. I’ve been using this for about eight years with very little trouble. It only takes a couple of minutes to set up. Here are the paths in the administrator account.

32-bit OS: Start > Administrative Tools > Local Security Policy > User Account Control (select Yes) > Software Restriction Policies > Security Levels > Choose Disallowed or Unrestricted, then right click on your selection to get the task menu and select Set as Default. Next, right click on Designated File Types to get the task menu and select Properties. Scroll down the list of file extensions, select LNK, select Remove, then select Apply and OK. Close Local Security Policy.

64-bit OS: Same as 32-bit, but with an additional rule. In the Software Restriction Policies folder, right click on Additional Rules to get the task menu and select New Path Rule. Browse to C:Program Files (x86), select OK, make sure the security level is Unrestricted, then select Apply and OK.

Removing the LNK extension allows program shortcuts to work, otherwise they would be blocked.

If you are using Windows 8 and Apps from the Windows Store, add the following New Path Rule: C:Program FilesWindowsApps and make sure the security level is Unrestricted.

44238-SRP-Security-Levels

44239-SRP-File-Types

44240-SRP-64-bit-Additional-Rule

For future reference, when getting a new computer, select a Windows OS version that is Professional or higher, rather than Home or lower. Professional or higher includes the Software Restriction Policy which, when used with standard accounts, prevents malware from executing. The only thing the malware can do is sit there until the next antimalware scan cleans it out. This is how companies with multiple employees prevent them from running crap. They may be able to download it, but they cannot run it. Also great if you have children who are clicking on every bell and whistle the internet offers. Again, they may be able to download something, but that’s where it ends. There are tiny holes in the Software Restriction Policy that could be exploited by a very knowledgeable person, but those holes can be plugged if a user wants to spend about 30 minutes on that. I haven’t bothered, so I can’t properly explain how to do it. For those with Windows Home or lower, there is a way to sort of simulate the Software Restriction Policy and that would be with Parental Controls. I’ve never had a Home version of Windows, so I can’t fully explain this, but my understanding is that Parental Controls is sort of like whitelisting. Each Home user would get a standard account with Parental Controls enabled and a list of allowed executables. Anything attempting to execute that’s not on the whitelist would be blocked.

Besides the PC companies Fred mentioned, a couple other good choices for custom configuration are http://www.avadirect.com and https://www.pugetsystems.com

The other thing I have noticed is that in my address book, not one single business is listed. It seems that Outlook only looks at the first and/or last names. Not even a glance as it were to the Company. So if I want a company to show up in the address book I have to list it as a person. WTH? If I type NameOptions>Contacts>Names and filing.

A tracking cookie is not malware, so don’t worry about it. The need for separate antispyware software disappeared years ago, so just uninstall Superantispyware. All it’s doing is wasting your time. Standard anti-virus software, when adjusted and customized correctly, will handle anti-malware protection for the typical user. Some Superantispyware evaluations:

Download.com – “Questionable performance” (http://download.cnet.com/SuperAntiSpyware-Free-Edition/3000-8022_4-10523889.html)

PCMag.com – “Dismal” (http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2463191,00.asp)

TopTenReviews.com – Ranked 16 of 18 (http://anti-spyware-review.toptenreviews.com/)

If you feel the need for something extra beyond your anti-virus software, a better choice would be Malwarebytes Anti-Malware Free.

http://download.cnet.com/Malwarebytes-Anti-Malware-Free/3000-8022_4-10804572.html

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2455505,00.asp

https://www.malwarebytes.org

Be careful using Chromodo. (Personally I’d run away screaming, but that’s just me.) Comodo has gotten several black eyes over Chromodo. Just Google “Chromodo Security Vulnerabilities” to learn more and make you own decision.
Also (since I know there are a number of listeners here) Comodo earned a “You’re doing it wrong” mention in Steve Gibson’s Security Now podcast. In any case Chromodo is not a secure as Comodo says.

Some browser security weaknesses were exposed last year in Chromodo, but those have been corrected (see attached screen shot). Internet Explorer and Firefox had the same issues. There was also a problem last year with an extension that came with Chromodo called PrivDog. It was privacy and ad blocking software that was discovered to have a security flaw. It was removed from the next browser version and corrected, but by then the negative publicity was so extensive that it was never added back to the browser. It was replaced by the Ad Sanitizer extension to perform similar duties, but that software turned out to also have a security flaw, and was removed from the next version. The current version does not have a preinstalled privacy or adblocking extension (I use Adblock Plus). Using a search engine to search for Internet Explorer, Firefox, and Google Chrome security vulnerabilities will produce hundreds of thousands of hits for each. A search for those three at Steve Gibson’s website will also produce many hits. Browser security has always been a challenge and Chromodo is not alone in that reality.

As an aside, the vast selection of extensions available for Chromium based browsers creates a security challenge for both developers and users. From what I’ve read, apps and extensions selected from the Chrome Web Store (https://chrome.google.com/webstore/) have a higher probability of being safe than those from other websites.

43775-Chromodo-security

Be careful using Chromodo. (Personally I’d run away screaming, but that’s just me.) Comodo has gotten several black eyes over Chromodo. Just Google “Chromodo Security Vulnerabilities” to learn more and make you own decision.
Also (since I know there are a number of listeners here) Comodo earned a “You’re doing it wrong” mention in Steve Gibson’s Security Now podcast. In any case Chromodo is not a secure as Comodo says.

Some browser security weaknesses were exposed last year in Chromodo, but those have been corrected (see attached screen shot). Internet Explorer and Firefox had the same issues. There was also a problem last year with an extension that came with Chromodo called PrivDog. It was privacy and ad blocking software that was discovered to have a security flaw. It was removed from the next browser version and corrected, but by then the negative publicity was so extensive that it was never added back to the browser. It was replaced by the Ad Sanitizer extension to perform similar duties, but that software turned out to also have a security flaw, and was removed from the next version. The current version does not have a preinstalled privacy or adblocking extension (I use Adblock Plus). Using a search engine to search for Internet Explorer, Firefox, and Chrome security vulnerabilities will produce hundreds of thousands of hits for each. A search for those three at Steve Gibson’s website will also produce many hits. Browser security has always been a challenge and Chromodo is not alone in that reality.

As an aside, the vast selection of extensions available for Chromium based browsers creates a security challenge for both developers and users. From what I’ve read, apps and extensions selected from the Chrome Web Store (https://chrome.google.com/webstore/) have a higher probability of being safer than those from other websites.

43775-Chromodo-security