Replies

I’ve had a frustrating weekend, wasted loads of time, trying to figure this one out, then I read Tracey Capen’s article “Potential problems with recent Windows updates” of 19 April.

It’s a weird issue, tried all the online MS tools and fixes with no luck. What fixed it eventually for me is to follow the above advice from Capen / Bradley and go and find on MS website KB3145739 and install it manually. You may need to stop the Windows Update process on your PC is already running endlessly without success, before you download and click to install this one KB. Once you install this KB, reboot and within 15 minutes all the other updates were offered.

I’m totally confused – been trying to find some information/solution as to why my Outlook (Office 2010) is no longer synchronising Hotmail emails – last one I have in the inbox was 11th December.
O/S Windows 7 Pro.

I’ve tried logging in and out of the online account, but nothing changes in Outlook.

It’s because you are one of the lucky ones (or unlucky depending upon your point of view) to have your Outlook.com account already migrated across from the Outlook/Hotmail server to Office 365. All users are being transferred over the next few months.

I’ve placed a link with more info below, in fact there are 3 great links there.

In summary, it involves uninstalling the Outlook / Hotmail Connector for Outlook 2010, then rebooting, then adding the account again, but this time selecting Microsoft Exchange Server, or else letting it look-up and find it automatically by itself. Personally I would also create a new profile in Outlook 2010 if you do this, to reduce scope for problems.
Anyway, those are not full instuctions just a quick overview, the link has much more info.

I am personally looking forward to having more functionality and compatability concerning aliases, delivery receipts, contact groups and other features not present in Outlook.com.

Hope this helps.

http://www.slipstick.com/outlook-user/outlook-com/

The very best product available, head-and-shoulders above the rest, is Malwarebytes Antimalware Home (Premium.) Everything else is junk compared to it. Perhaps this is why it was not tested. It would make all other products look poor. On my Windows 10 build 10240 Professional x64 installation, I turned off Windows Defender via gpedit.msc, and have aforementioned running. I am well protected, and do not have any issues.

….yet.

I use MBAM Premium as well, but I know it’s not a full-spectrum AV, they warn users as such themselves. It will not normally intervene whilst downloading an infected file for example, whilst MSE will kick in and quarantine the downloaded file immediately. I use these two softwares together on my main PC plus a daily quick double-check with Hitman Pro with .Alert enabled. Very lightweight together, no clashes, they complement each other, excellent multi-layer protection.

On another PC I use Webroot but had one or two issues with it because it works completely differently to any other AV. It’s excellent, but they need to iron out one or two quirks before I will use it more widely. Because it is so different, many AV test companies are not set up to test something as radical and effective as Webroot.

As for other AV and anti-malwares out there, I’ve probably tried them all in the past few years and most are either not effective or are too problematic and / or diffiult to manage effectively. Just one example that comes to mind, I’ve spent a lot of time trying to use Comodo but I always end up removing it eventually, despite many people saying it works great for them.

I’m curious as to why some companies are not represented in the test result. For example, I didn’t see any recent testing of Symantec products in the AV Comparative results (apparently last tested in 2010?) or VB100. TrendMicro ranked very high on AV Comparative results, but didn’t appear at all on VB100 testing.

Can we infer anything from their absence?

That they are not very good or don’t want to pay.

Interesting article but I am surprised that you did not take the opportunity to mention that 2 or 3 Chinese AV makers (Qihoo 360, Tencent and I think maybe Baidu?) were recently kicked out by AV Comparatives as well as AV Test and Virus Bulletin for allegedly gaming / cheating! The alleged trick was to provide a version of their software for testing with the Bitdefender engine enabled whilst the standard consumer product used their own much inferior engine!

I have exactly the same situation as you. During the day I operate off my desktop and nights and weekends off my laptop. If you aren’t switching back and forth multiple times a day my solution works very neatly. At the end of the day, just copy off your PST file and put it on the laptop. The following morning, if you have done any Outlook work during the previous evening, just move the pst file back to the desktop. Everything stays right up to date.

I do even more than that. I also carry a set of my files around on the laptop so that I can operate on anything just as if I am in the office. I use a product called Laplink every morning and every night and it synchs all the files on both machines to the latest copy. No muss no fuss, 2 minutes and its done. Like walking around with the same computer.

I’d be concerned about valuable pst files getting corrupted with a set up like that then having to revert to backups and hoping that re-synching emails would not lose any emails in the process. To avoid issues like that is why IMAP should be the best solution since it keeps everything in sync automatically. However, Outlook 2010 and IMAP don’t work too well together in that there are lengthy pases for syncing and actions such as deleting emails which should be instantaneous can pause for 5-10 seconds as the syncing with server occurs. Windows Live Mail 2012 does it properly, apparently so does Outlook 2013. Another alternative would be using an email provider with MAPI which is native to Outlook, such as Office 365 and Outlook.com

“it’s not easy finding an app-whitelisting solution for home PCs”

Wow Susan, I can’t believe that I just read that on a Windows Secrets article! There are plenty of antivirus / antimalware apps that use whitelisting and also can run unknown apps in a sandbox for further evaluation. Two that immediately come to mind are both well-known, that’s Comodo and Webroot.

The problem with “universal” apps is that it’s a one size fits all paradigm. Imagine outfitting your private 747 jet with the same controls as your car. It’s ludicrous to believe there’s exactly one “universal” methodology can drive/fly/sail all vehicle types.

In the case of the devices used for consumers/business, these universal apps will have to all be dumbed down to the most trivial device. The example is Win8 metro apps all insisting on running full screen. That works on a small screen, such as a tablet or a phone. It just doesn’t work on a 30 inch monitor.

The reason that these apps operate the way that they do is that they have to support a very crude pointing device, namely the human finger. That particular “pointer” device needs a lot of pixel space on the screen so that the system doesn’t pick the wrong adjacent button. Likely, no screen designed for touch would ever offer more than one touch point per square inch. Ouch, that’s a huge footprint compared to what a mouse can point to.

If the universal API allowed the developer to specify how dense the “touchpoints” should appear on the screen, then perhaps we may have something workable. Then the developers would soon end up designing screens that could be touched or clicked, depending on the user’s preferences and his system’s capabilities. But that means the layouts of touch screens will diverge from the clickable screens.

In Windows 10, we have fully re-sizeable universal apps. They are a joke! When you ask for a less than full screen display, the app’s window immediately acquires horizontal and vertical scroll bars. You cannot view the whole screen. Many of these apps don’t even “fold” text lines at the window boundary.

I say that there are TWO operating environments that have to be designed. The touch and the click.

Steve Harrold
sharrold@Hotmail.com

You are spot-on Steve. I’ve thought the same way since I first came upon the Metro design and then had it increasingly forced upon me by all manner of program vendors onto my Win 7 environment. It simply does not work for the desktop / mouse environment. I also like my icons to have a bit of 3D depth and colour rather than the ridiculous eye-aching flat design of Metro / Universal, especially in a program like Office 2013 which demands efficiency and productivity in the business environment, not straining to see and remember where the relevant icon is.

MS seem to be involved with some gargantuan neo-Marxist project to homogenise everything and everyone into their way of thinking and doing things; it won’t work! I’ve had a great 20+ years using MS but now I am gradually withdrawing from their tools purely because of this insane intransigence.

I’m all for change and moving forward and indeed I have welcomed Android as a better alternative to Windows Mobile, but I’d never consider using Android on my desktop nor would most other normal people! If Windows 10 or 11 can’t give me the desktop GUI that I enjoy in Win 7 then I will simply migrate to Linux Mint with a Gnome 2 desktop or similar. In fact I may do it even sooner and then run Office 2010 in Wine emulation, or else simply use Office 365 online as and when I need 100% compatibility with my clients using MS.

I think MS have improved their thinking since the Balmer left but still an awful way to go.

what is this safe mode?

where do you find it ?
how do you run it??

what does it do taht mbam doesnt just do anyway ???

thanks for your insights on this

If you do not know what Safe Mode is then, with all due respect, you would need a fair bit of instruction, time and patience for someone to take you through it, so I’ll offer another alternative suggestion for consideration.

Since you already have Malwarebytes, then I suggest you upgrade it to their Pro / Premium version. When I bought it it cost around $30 for a lifetime license, not sure what it costs now, but it’s worth every cent.
The Pro or Premium version is designed to run in realtime and to complement your AV. It looks for the kind of malware that a basic AV typically does not look for. It also does look for PUPs, so perhaps the free version does not, or you are running an older version, but the fact that you found PUPs means that Malwarebytes is in fact working, but I would still recommend upgrading for the realtime version since no one software can detect everything.

Then, you can keep ESET, it is a very good AV, and you will have an extra layer of security with Malwarebytes Pro or Premium. If you do it this way, in my opinion, is the easiest solution for you, because you will be working with products that you already own and are familiar with rather than learning something new, having to uninstall stuff, risk having fragments remaining and causing crashes on your PC, etc. Better stay with what you have, just upgrade Malwarebytes.

Or use a free alternative like LibreOffice.

cheers, Paul

I have used LibreOffice, OpenOffice and even the fore-runner of all these called StarOffice 15+ years ago and whilst reasonable for many users I simply cannot get adequate compatibility with MS Office formats, essential for me due to my business / professional needs.

Just two days ago I tried again on a Powerpoint file, tried to then edit it in OpenOffice and once again experience significant show-stopping formatting issues, so I had to drop the idea again.

Interestingly the same day I also downloaded a “Made in Germany” software called Softmaker FreeOffice, tried opening the same pptx file and it handled the formatting correctly, I was extremely surprised and pleased and will continue to evaluate this interesting Office alternative, it seems to have been around a few years although I don’t recall seeing it before.

Perhaps that is why I use Office 2007 and 2010, which allow the installation on a desktop and “a portable device”. Check out the EULA on both of them. I just don’t see the value proposition to spend money to make it more difficult to find same functions in a different location.

+1

I do the same as you, and think the same way.

I have Office 2010 and recently trialled Office 2013 due to it reportedly having better IMAP caching / handling. The trial did not last very long, I found the GUI a complete mess, it was like working with the online versions of apps which I had assumed were in their particular style to avoid bandwidth issues when interfacing with them online. My eyes actually ached, it was a confusing, flat, white (or grey option) expanse of icons that were very hard to differentiate and navigate quickly. It’s really not an issue of familiarity, it’s an issue of very poor GUI design and ignoring desktop / laptop (non-touch) users once again.

I cannot imagine subscribing to Office 365 and having to suffer arbitrary yet completely fundamental design and function changes at the whim of some “bright” young thing at MS who unfortunately don’t possess REAL WORLD business experience, I’ve already got that issue with Outlook.com, especially removing essential functions such as read receipts and restricting alias names for commercial reasons to make Office 365 a more compelling upgrade….NO WAY JOSE !!!

This is a nice article, but it’s too simplistic, especially for the kinds of intermediate / advanced readers who subscribe to WS 😎

Here are some observations and suggestions, not in any particular order, just how they came to my mind:

– There are several proficient test sites, however, they use their own methodologies and samples and can come up with completely different results and rankings compared to other sites. Just one example, Microsoft SE, is the benchmark with AV-Comparatives, above, at around 85% +/- yet these tests are apparently not done via the IE browser with Smartcreen switched on – IF they were, then according to MS then only a very small fraction of 1% of malware would get through, as confirmed by their telemetry on Windows systems! This paints a completely different picture of results and is EXTREMELY dependent upon browsers, settings, types of sites visited, etc!

– as the article points out there are wide variations in performance and system impact. I have tested most AV software over the past few years and I would agree that the Top 2 above of Bitdefender and Avira are low in resources / impact, generally. However, BD browser add-ons significantly SLOW things down to such an extent that they need to be switched off eventually, in my experience. Given that most threats come from the browsing vector this is a dangerous thing to do, so BD ends up being uninstalled and we move on to the next AV / anti-malware! As for Avira, great at traditional AV detection, but too many false-positives in my experience and inadequate behaviour monitoring for new malware.

– as already mentioned by others, these tests do not include many other security softwares, and for several valid reasons. Some of them, such as Webroot / Prevx, work in a very different way to traditional software and will not immediately alert the user if no immediate harm is being done / about to be done, it will be just monitored as a potential threat – if it does not match the database signature in the cloud and / or does not execute harmful actions. The AV testing companies cannnot cope with such a different approach and hence Webroot is rarely included in these tests, unfortunately. Similarly Comodo, they have a multi-layered approach as well as a default-deny option which most testing methodologies cannot show correctly and hence show Comodo in a bad light, which is very mis-representative of the real world results with users. These are just two examples.

– some reviewers claim that software is having a resource impact simply by the the reading of RAM usage in the Task Manager, however, this can be frequently mis-leading in my experience. Many softwares will use more RAM, if it’s freely available, to REDUCE the impact of scans, monitoring, accessing the disk, etc, and the result is a very low user impact!!! Many reviewers in Youtube and commenting on Gizmo and elsewhere simply don’t know what they are talking about, sadly.

– I highly recommend a multi-layered approach to security with two or three products, each performing different or complementary roles. These “testing houses” cannot cope with this. There are a few IT experts on Youtube who test various combinations and whose results are extremely revealing and worthwhile to watch. That said, some of them don’t have a real clue as to what they are doing and give inappropriate advice. Many WS users are sufficiently competent to perform their own multi-layered tests in virtual test environments and can come up with their own conclusions, as I have done.

So you might ask, what do I use?

For most users and devices I use Webroot Secure Anywhere, which on a PC is lightning-fast. However, on some mobile devices it is a complete dog and I replace it with Bitdefender.

On my own main laptop I removed WR despite it being low in resources because there were issues with the browser add-ons and major conflictss with their password manager which is based on LastPass, which I have already installed. On that laptop I have “evolved” to using simply Microsoft SE plus Malwarebytes Professional / Premium in real time, the combination of which gives fantastic protection AND is superbly low on resource impact…..regardless of what it may show as RAM usage in Task Manager!

I also use Bitdefender Safepay for internet banking which scans the laptop for malware upon each use of Safepay, so essentially I have 3 layers of protection.

It certainly does have teething problems, in fact it’s not yet ready for release in my experience.

I created a restore point in Windows 7 32 then installed EMET 5. Experienced all manner of issues with IE 9 browsing and related with that Webroot SA which protects the browser sessions.

Ended up uninstalling EMET 5 and went to restore my PC to an earlier time, guess what, that and several other restore points had somehow disappeared. The ones remaining were of no use.

Remaining in this state the IE 9 perfomance was dreadful and many issues remained on certain sites….even with WRSA temporarily disabled just to double.check it was not a Webroot problem.

I concluded by spending my whole weekend doing a fresh install of the whole laptop just to start all over again, also gave me a chance to permanently remove some applications that I had not used in a long time.

For banking security I will not be installing EMET, instead I’ll either do it on a linux live USB or else install Bitdefender Safepay as a standalone from the rest of the suit; quite happy to use MSE for a while without installing complex and deep-reaching security softwares that can royally mess things up. Even imaging and reverting is not a good enough option for me.

Well, AV programs can go rogue now and again and block Internet connectivity, but it’s normally because of a buggy Definitions update.

Does your wife’s computer also have EMET5 installed ?

I’ve experienced very similar problems in the past few days since I installed EMET 5, default settings, on Win 7 32 SP1. Now removed it, better but still a bit clitchy. Will try to restore to pre EMET and see if improvement.

For non-US people they are increasingly going to choose non-US solutions. Just a few days ago a US judge ruled that MS must provide emails stored on Irish servers. MS say (rightly) that can only happen if a request is made by the US court to the Irish authorities who must then approve it, but the US judge deems that Irish approval is not required since MS is a US company.

The implications are huge for US companies providing cloud services, email, even potentially antivirus and any other software company. Not only is it morally and legally dubious to say the least, but it’s commercially suicidal for the US IT sector.

Good news for EU, Swiss, Norwegian and other providers.