verycleanpc.com

kbphoto615
Posts: 10
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2010 5:32 am

sorry for being a newb :/

Post by kbphoto615 » Sun Nov 28, 2010 6:17 pm

Id like to apologize for hijacking the thread. I did start out and seek this thread for the main reason at first. After reading everyones posts I learned IOBIT is not a trustworthy company and I was just curious as to what precautions I need to take, and/or how to clean it up off my system. I did not mean to make it about cleaning up my sluggish system. But I do know better than to hijack a thread. :( Being new to the site though when I went to send a message or board post it would not let me post a second time so quickly. Now I know how to post on someones board, I will do that in the future before posting on a thread. Thanks again guys.

Guest

RE: verycleanpc.com

Post by Guest » Sat Apr 09, 2011 9:46 am

I see cyberdefender has wangled a mention on cnet <a href="http://news.cnet.com/8301-27080_3-20052203-245.html">New fake antivirus accepts SMS payments<a>

Jazspeak
Posts: 7295
Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2008 4:20 pm

RE: verycleanpc.com

Post by Jazspeak » Sat Apr 09, 2011 9:56 am

"mention on cnet"

Ha, paying to get infected is certainly a new twist. I wonder if they give you a choice of virus or worm, or perhaps a sliding scale. Trojan $10, Worm $15, etc.

Guest

RE: verycleanpc.com

Post by Guest » Sat Apr 09, 2011 12:04 pm

I wonder if they give you a choice of virus or worm, or perhaps a sliding scale. Trojan $10, Worm $15, etc.

Lol now that was funny :-) I nearly spat my coffee out when read this.

c۞g
Posts: 21225
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2009 4:02 am

RE: verycleanpc.com

Post by c۞g » Sat Apr 09, 2011 12:52 pm

Referencing two year old crapware and written by a reporter whose career seems to be going downhill rather than up ...

Satchman
Posts: 1163
Joined: Mon Dec 28, 2009 1:08 pm

RE: verycleanpc.com

Post by Satchman » Sat Apr 09, 2011 10:18 pm

Obvious Rogue site. Rated Red.

Satch

rosanna morris
Posts: 8
Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2011 2:37 pm

RE: verycleanpc.com

Post by rosanna morris » Sun Apr 10, 2011 2:37 pm

I thought I might make a comment in regard to IObit..
The negative info on them is in regard to their business practices toward other malware/virus security providers.
But they are still legitimate in regard to their public product and do not distribute malware or other dangerous elements as I see inferred here.
There is a difference in disagreeing with their supposed business procedures.and whether or not they are guilty of questionable practices and whether they themselves are guilty of distributing malware or have an unsafe site.
Their product is clean even if you don't like them personally. Ask Cnet and many others.

rosanna morris
Posts: 8
Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2011 2:37 pm

RE: verycleanpc.com

Post by rosanna morris » Sun Apr 10, 2011 2:43 pm

I just want to make a point that my above post is questioning how much of the ratings are based on personal feelings as opposed to truly dangerous sites and software.

c۞g
Posts: 21225
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2009 4:02 am

RE: IObit

Post by c۞g » Sun Apr 10, 2011 6:03 pm

You're off topic.
delete your posts please and use Forum Search for IObit

Guest

RE: verycleanpc.com

Post by Guest » Sun Apr 10, 2011 7:54 pm

@ rosanna morris,

Not real sure what IOBit or general rating behavior has to do with the topic, but since others may have a similar question as you, let me try to answer it.

The answer is . . . there is no answer beyond your own suspicions, speculation, and opinion.

Over 12 million people have the WOT addon. Even if you assume only half of them rate, that leaves 6 million raters to survey. To be anywhere near accurate, your sample is going to have to be pretty large . . . never mind the fact that very few people are even going to acknowledge that "personal bias" is the basis for their ratings.

Hence it's your own opinion.

Do people rate that way? Of course.

Can you quantify how many do? I don't know how you could do that.

My own suspicion is that it is a small percentage, but that is nothing more than speculation. I can't "prove" it, nor can you prove anything to the contrary . . . unless you can survey 6 million people and show that they all were being objective in assessing themselves.

If you have that skill, you ought to be in the Guiness Book.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests