Well I have been running Avast for a while - it caught a lot of incomming viruses!
Then I wanted to upgrade to WinXP from Win98SE and that was a mistake - WinXP bombed and now I’m back to Win98SE. The instal messed up a lot of my program settings and even hardware settings!
Anyway after I got Win98SE back up and running I noticed that when I check my Email - the Avast Email Icon no longer is shown on my Task Bar when I check my Email. I ran the Email Wizard and made sure the right servers where on the right tabs. But still no Email Icon.
I re-downloaded Avast 4 and did a clean install (I even used the Avast Clear program or whatever it’s called to wipe the old program off) but still no Email Icon. Yes, the Icon tab is checked.
If your system can handle it, I recommend to use XP. Much more secure than 98(se). XP and 98 are very different. XP is NT based. So a upgrade is not advised. A clean install is. Ofcourse XP needs other drivers than 98(se). But the choice is yours ofcourse.
Before we can help you, you need to give more information.
What version of Avast?
What are you using as email client?
Any errors in Avast’s log file? (if so, exact error)
It’s well known that the upgrade from Windows 98 to Windows XP requires an uninstall avast / boot / install again / boot sequence… As you wrote, the instal messed up a lot of my program settings…
I changed my mail server in Netscape to 127.0.0.1 and I also added the line PopListen=127.0.0.1:110 to the Avast.INI file. And now the Email icon is back when I check my Email.
I must say I never had this problem before - and I don’t think it has anything to do with my problems with WinXP.
Looks like the Install of Avast 4 is what’s different - because I never had this problem when I first installed Avast with the older version.
If your system can handle it, I recommend to use XP. Much more secure than 98(se)
hmm, i think you’ll know it better, but my opinion is that this sentence is wrong…
win98 is very old, and nearly no one will code viruses anymore for 98, for xp they will (because most of the windows-user are using XP instead of the “old 98”)
Anyway, I can’t* run WinXP. Microsoft advised me to NOT run XP on my machine after talking with them for about 35 minutes on the phone trying to get XP to work properly on my machine.
So instead of ripping my whole system into pieces - I’ll just stick with 98se - as advised my Microsoft.
You’re quite wrong. XP IS much more secure. Also, in regards to virus coders…Most viruses written for 98 work fine on XP and vice versa… I am not quite sure where you are getting that info.
It's amazing but this the 5th thread I've looked at this morning and you've had something to say in each one of them??? Nothing constructive or helpful but, youve had something to say.
If you're looking for more posts to add to your score, please let me know. I'd be happy to give you some of mine. In the Off-Topic post, idle chatter is fine. In the rest of the threads, there are people looking for help with a problem that needs to be solved. They didn't post their problem to be confronted with idle chatter or criticism. Read and Learn. Then if you have something constructive to add, post. ;D
Yeah, alot of people seem to have that opinion. That’s cool with me, but it simply isn’t true. It is strange to me how we ALL have some beliefs that aren’t based on good research and facts (Excluding religious and philosophical beliefs which cannot be proven nor disproven through experimentation). Perhaps I’m biased, as I have yet to have any serious problems with Windows XP. If installed/configured correctly, XP is a much more secure AND MUCH more stable OS than the previous versions of Windows. This isn’t my opinion, this is pretty much fact. Of course there are some systems that XP doesn’t work well on, but those systems probably shouldn’t be running XP to begin with…due to out dated hardware and low resources such as RAM. Some people just like to hang on to the past…which is more familiar territory.
My comment from before was mostly in reference to you saying that no one codes viruses for 98 anymore. Which isn’t true at all. Sorry for any misunderstandings.
well, i just can say, that i dont care what you think about me, and i really dont give a fu** if you say its bad that i say nothing construcitive…
My comment from before was mostly in reference to you saying that no one codes viruses for 98 anymore. Which isn't true at all. Sorry for any misunderstandings
first READ; then READ again and THEN answer…i said that “nearly” (see? “NEARLY”) no one codes virues for 98 anymore…
Most viruses written nowadays are attacking ALL Windows versions except for Win 3.x and lower. Win-XP on a ntfs file system is much more secure than Win98(se). If you spend some time on research and learn to know XP, you can make it even more secure, just with the options it standard has build in.
The problem with this beautiful theory is that lots of new users of XP can’t or won’t “Research and learn” or “configure” their machine properly.
and lots of current Network/RPC/LSASS/…-worms only run or are targeted at NT-based systems:
like all those cute unpatched XP-Home machines which are being used under admin-account
→ why do you think the average time-to-infection on an unpatched/unsecured PC with inet-access is about 20 minutes… ?
obviously your PC isn’t/wasn’t secured enough to prevent infection
if you get infected while logged-in as Admin, malware can potentially do EVERYTHING on your PC, meaning it can cause greater damage than under a restricted account
You should never run as admin or root unless you are making changes to the system. You think you know enough about XP to say that it is less secure than 98, but then you ask why can’t I run as admin while surfing the net??? Are you kidding me?
