Rjpfrancais

@ Bob T I'm not an upset Windows user, Im a happy Windows and Linux user. I just don't like mis-information.

@ Norman H Actually I did read the last link and I quickly realised how out of date it was. It was originally written in 2003 way before the release of Vista and Windows 7. Perhaps you've been using Linux for so long that your knowledge of Windows is now seriously out of date? But back to Linux (which I use myself for specific jobs and I like it), no operating system is inherently secure. The only reason that perhaps you can get away with running Linux without AV software is because Linux is only found on 1-2% of desktops so it doesn't get much if any attention from virus writing miscreants. Apple used to claim its safe to run OSx without AV software but MACs have become more of a target as they have become more popular, as have iPhones etc whose iOS operating system is derived from OSX. And as somebody mentioned above, Linux powers most of the world's webservers. So when you hear about website hacking stories which OS do you think is being hacked? Also think about Android which is another Linux distribution, there has been an explosion of malware in the last year targetted at this platform. Do you still feel that Linux is inherently secure?

Deleted by me

"Microsoft Outlook is able to infect a user's computer when they do something as innocuous as read an email a Linux user would have to read the email, save the attachment, give the attachment executable permissions, and then run the executable. " That quote is so far out-of-date its almost laughable. The article from which you got it was lifted (without giving any credit) from another article written the best part of 10 years a go - Windows security is in an altogether different league now. Try doing what you said above on a Vista or Win 7 PC. Please don't spread this sort of FUD without checking it first.

I'm not sure why pachapapa feels the need to throw a hissy fit, or indeed why Quillan felt the need to wade in. My points stand; a) Why take the risk of downloading Security Essentials via any website other than www.microsoft.com/security_essentials ?? b) I still can't see anything that states there's a new version available. Don't worry, if someone comes along and proves me wrong on both counts (via informed argument hopefully) I won't get all upset and stomp off in a sulk ;-)

@pachapapa I'm sorry you've decided to take your MSE ball away and not play anymore, but that's your perogative of course. My point was and is that I would caution against downloading updates from anywhere other than the official www.microsoft.com site. Sites with names like http://mse.dlservice.microsoft.com are NOT bona fide Microsoft sites, even though part of the name suggests they might be.

@Jay And the link you gave confirms that the current version version is 2.0.657.0 So it stills begs the question; Is the original link provided by pachapappa pointing to a bogus "new" version? I'm not pretending that I know the answer but I'm sure that I will only be downloading Security Essentials updates from www.microsoft.com and nowhere else. @pachapappa; http://mse.dlservice.microsoft.com http://answers.microsoft.com/ do not look like legit Microsoft sites to me so I would not advise anyone to download updates from them!! This site does look legit; http://www.microsoft.com/fr-fr/security_essentials/default.aspx BUT it doesn't say anything about a new version 2.1.1116. So where did you (pachapappa) cut and paste the file title, version, filename etc. details from? This is after all SECURITY software we're talking about. I think it is prudent to be very careful where you download updates from!

Are you sure there's a new version? Version 2.0 was launched late last year. The current version is 2.0.657. I can't find any information on the Microsoft site about version 2.1.0.116. And as a matter of principal, I wouldn't download Security Essentials from anywhere other than Microsoft's own site at; www.microsoft.com/security_essentials/ How do you know that the download on fileforum.betanews is legit?

By "Orange Window" are you refering to your "espace client" web page under www.orange.fr? And if so, which option is it to reset the Livebox? But in anycase, why didn't you just reset your Livebox the normal way by pressing the reset button on the bottom with a paper clip for 10 seconds?

@Dog Its unlikely your 12 year old PC is running Vista or Windows 7. Therefore as Albert pointed out, it can't run IE9. As regards Orange saying there are problems with IE9. What problems? I've run IE9 for months and its fine and a bit faster than IE8. However, I don't like the new interface. For example, the favorites button is stuck on the RHS and it can't be moved to the left. Also the new menu structure is poor in my opinion. They've tried to make the interface too like Chrome (which I also use) and in doing so have ditched some of the useful bits from IE8.

I disagree with Pierre on a number of points; 1) Most Windows XP installations will run well with 1GB of RAM. For specialist tasks, extra RAM may be of benefit but most users would not notice any improvement in performance. 2) 512Mb is not the minimum RAM required for IE8, it will run in much less RAM than that. 3) Forget IE7, upgrading to IE8 is a no brainer. Better performance, compatibility and security. 4) BEFORE upgrading, Sue would be well advised to make sure that (as a minimum) XP Service Pack 3 is installed. I don't disagree that Chrome is possibly a superior alternative but in my experience IE8 does the job for most people, and provided the machine is not bogged down by the usual assortment of dubious software installed by over zealous install programs, it runs very well. That's just my 2'penneth...feel free to disagree ;-)

Scrub my last comment re not being able to pin sites to the Taskbar in Vista. I was wrong, yes you can do it in Vista!! In fact you can pin web site shortcuts to the task bar or the start menu, or you can pin your whole favorites folder if you like. The only difference is that we Vista users can't put these pinned sites into taskbar Jump Lists. @pachapapa: re épinglé'ing (franglais or what!) - yes I see now how you can open favorites with the start icon and the click on the little green arrow at the top to pin favorites to the left. As far as I can see this approach has two downsides; the favorites 'tree' window stays open thus taking up screen space on the left. And as soon as you click on the Favorites star icon, the Favorites window flicks back to the right :-( For now, I'm sticking with having my Favorites as folder in the Favorites bar, although I might use Pinned sites facility for certain sites. Well its good to learn new things :-)

Thanks Quillan for the detailed explanation - I undesrstand now :-) re Novell servers, wow haven't seen one of those for years! And I doubt your average teenage hacker would even know what one was ;-)

Quillan wrote: "We 'bridge' ours through the server to stop hacking." What does that mean?

@Quillan - Its not quite correct to say 64bit systems are much faster than 32bit systems. That depends on so many factors but suffice to say for most everyday tasks there is in fact very little difference. The main benefit of 64bit systems is that they can handle more than 4Gb of RAM but that only speeds things up if your system actually needs more RAM. That may be the case for example for video editing or cutting edge games but not for every day browsing or word processing ;-)