Does this site think that Ubuntu is another version of Window$… Check out the instructions in the link
http://www.ehow.com/how_4869793_remove-grisoft-avg-ubuntu.html
And that’s NOT the FIRST one that I have found, whoever writes this stuff needs to be educated as to the differences in OS’s. I have not yet seen/found ‘Add/Remove’ in Ubuntu, unless there is something I am missing…
Heh, yeh a bit generic considering they’re talking about Ubuntu specifically … but why did you install AV in the first place ?
LOL… To do my bit in helping protect poor Window$ users and kill any virus detected by AVG so it doesnt infect the less unfortunate out there who still use Winsow$ 
Personally I say … “sod Windows, let it take care of its own AV problem (or not)” … why should you slow Linux with unnecessary AV when you should have it running in Windows, and if it IS running in Windows, why bother with it in Linux too ?
how do I get rid of it then?
What’s the correct remove commands, I’m not sure?
I take it they probably mean (by Appllications–Add/Remove) either the Ubuntu Software Centre, or the Synaptic package manager … but without knowing how you installed it, it’s impossible to say for sure.
Neither of them, it was Terminal. Think it was a .DEB file
If you installed it from a .deb … it will be listed in the Ubuntu Software Centre and Synaptic … uninstall it from there.
That’s what I meant in the first place.
Ah rite, will take a look
I have yet MORE proof that people have Window$ on the brain.
I sent a message on the ASUS site asking how I can update my BIOS (I previously updated it to 2002 when I had Window$, using the BOIS update program that came with it). I filled in the questionnaire sheet that asks for information about my system, note the OS I entered, near the bottom.
This is what I got back;
Dear Valued Customer,
Thank you for contacting ASUS Customer Service.
My name is Andrew and it’s my pleasure to help you with your problem.
Please run asus update under windows to update the bios.
http://support.asus.com.cn/Download.aspx?SLanguage=en&p=1&s=24&m=M3A76-CM&os=30&ft=14&f_name=AsusUpdt_V71706.zip#AsusUpdt_V71706.zip
The following is the latest bios version.
Welcome to refer Troubleshooting & FAQ for ASUS products in ASUS website:
http://support.asus.com/servicehome.aspx?SLanguage=en
If you continue to experience issues in the future, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Best Regards,
Andrew
---------- Original Message ----------
From : [email protected]
Sent : 2012-7-30 12:28:52
To : “[email protected]”
Subject : Motherboard M3A76-CM
[CASEID=******************]
Apply date : 7/30/2012 12:29:48 PM(UTC Time)
[Contact Information]
*Name : Me
*Email Address : [email protected]
Phone Number : 999
City : Here
*Country : United Kingdom
[Product Information]
*Product Type : Motherboard
*Product Model : M3A76-CM
*Product S/N : **********
Place of Purchase :
*Date of Purchase : 2009/4/1
[Motherboard Specification]
*Motherboard Revision : 1.0
*Motherboard BIOS Revision : 2002
[CPU Specification]
*CPU Vendor : AMD
*CPU Type : Socet 940
*CPU Speed : 2700
*Operating System : Linux
[Problem Description]
How do I update the BIOS to the latest version and what is the latest version so that I
can install a new processor such as a Phenom?
If you look at the “Supported CPU” list:
http://www.asus.com/Motherboards/AMD_AM2Plus/M3A76CM/#CPUS
ALL CPU’s in that list are supported by your CURRENT BIOS version (2002) … so there’s no need to update it (though it can probably be done from a DOS floppy, or USB stick) … DO NOT update your BIOS unless there is a specific NEED to do so … a failed BIOS update will brick your system.
But most of the supported Phenom CPU’s require motherboard revision 1.00G … if you’re not sure if your mobo is revision 1.00G …
These quad core Phemons are supported by ALL ASUS M3A76CM motherboard revisions.
There are also a bunch of Athlon II X4 CPU’s that are supported by all mobo revisions.
My board has a crash free BIOS, it’s recoverable id does crash though.
Will take a look at the list
Doesn’t change the fact it’s unnecessary.
There are a lot of people out there that think updating the BIOS for no other reason than to “have the latest version” is a good idea … IT ISN’T … leave your BIOS alone unless you NEED a new feature/fix.
What are the BIOS revisions for anyway? as far as I can see, it’s to be able to install a bigger CPU!
BIOS revisions are to add support for new features (sometimes required by new hardware such as new CPU’s, hard drives, etc.) … sometimes they are to fix bugs in the original BIOS revision.
On about hard drives, my board has 6 HD SATA slots but at the mo’ I can only use 4. If I wanted to use the other two, I have to do something to activate them but I’m not sure what. The reason I mention this is, I had to buy a new CD/DVD drive as my other one had failed, it was the old IDE connection.
If I knew how to activate the other 2 SATA slots, I could have bought one of the new SATA CD/DVD drives. If I can get the other 2 SATA slots activated, I still might go and get a new SATA CD/DVD drive so I can do a straight disc to disc copy.
I don’t want to fill my tower up with HD’s as I eventually want to get a 12TB NAS drive and clear the HD’s from my system and just have the boot drive.
It will be a setting in the BIOS … BUT … with 4 HDD’s and an optical drive already attached, unless you upgraded your power supply you may already be stretching it.
Disk to disk copying (optical drivers), particularly if the PC is doing any other I/O or anything CPU/RAM intensive, is not a good idea, to be sure that there is no dropout of data transfer (larger than the cache size) during the burn, you usually have to drop the “Write” speed in the software … which will pretty much offset any time benefit from not just copying it to the HDD first … you’re more likely to end up with a bunch of coasters.
Modern optical drives and software are supposed to be able to pick up a burn from where it left off (when there’s a dropout of the transfer) … but IMHO, they usually fail.
I’ve got a 650w PSU
Disk to disk copying (optical drivers), particularly if the PC is doing any other I/O or anything CPU/RAM intensive, is not a good idea, to be sure that there is no dropout of data transfer (larger than the cache size) during the burn, you usually have to drop the "Write" speed in the software .. which will pretty much offset any time benefit from not just copying it to the HDD first .. you're more likely to end up with a bunch of coasters.
If and when I do any burning, I would not be doing anything else to occupy the CPU/RAM like editing a video at the same time as I know about pushing the CPU when I used Window$, I quite often used to push the system to 100% and it slowed to a snails pace and I could’nt do anything else until it caught up.
Having installed Ubuntu, I have noticed quite an improvement in speed, considering XP Pro was NOT a 64bit OS and now I am using a 64bit OS, it can use the CPU to it’s potential.
Modern optical drives and software are *supposed* to be able to pick up a burn from where it left off (when there's a dropout of the transfer) .. but IMHO, they usually fail.
Then they are not fit for purpose, which is a completely different ball-game
Then they are not fit for purpose, which is a completely different ball-game
Not technically true … maybe I didn’t explain this well enough.
Historically any burn to a writeable CD/DVD was an uninteruptable process … once the burn had started it had to complete with no interruption to the flow of data to the drive, otherwise you would get a buffer underrun error.
Think of it like this … once the disk is spun up to speed, the burn laser turns on and starts to move, creating a spiral that starts at the middle of the disk … the movement of the laser is a uniform process, so if data stopped flowing to the drive there would be a gap in the data spiral written to the disk.
The standards for data CD/DVD’s for PC’s doesn’t allow for gaps, so the disk would be scrap … not to mention the disk would not be “closed” properly.
Later on, the drive manufacturers (Sanyo, IIRC) came up with technology (BURN-Proof) that would (under ideal circumstances) allow the drive to seek the last place the disk was burned to, and pick up the burn from there … but the important clue is “under ideal circumstances” … te technology used in optical drives was never meant to be that accurate, so it was always going to be an "it might save your disk if you’re lucky kind of affair … it was never guarantted to save every burn, and it always worked best (but still only occasionally) at low burn speeds.
It’s reliability is also affected by optical disk quality, ink quality, and obviously wear of the moving drive components.
CD/DVD’s have always been, and will always be more likely to succeed if the data is comming from a hard drive rather than a MUCH slower optical drive … there is no arguing this point.
If and when I do any burning, I would not be doing anything else to occupy the CPU/RAM
YOU don’t have to … the OS itself may do something such as reorganising it’s HDD data, clearing of disk caches or any other general I/O operation … this is also MUCH more liable to occur in a system with multiple drives.
It’s HIGHLY unlikely to be the CPU that’s the bottleneck here … it will be input/output operations (read/writes to disk).
I’m not making this up ??? … disk to disk burning simply isn’t worth the risk (or the slowing of the burn speed to mitigate the risk), a modern drive will read a disk and write it to the HDD in a couple of minutes, the only time it may take longer is if it has trouble reading parts of the disk and has to make multiple attempts at re-reading … but that is PRECISELY one of the situations that could cause a buffer underrun in a disk to disk burn … IMHO, it just aint worth it.
Lecture over … if you decide not to listen, that’s up to you … as I said, the setting to enable the other SATA ports will be in the BIOS somewhere, but without sitting in front of your PC, I can’t say exactly where.
After highlighting the pro’s & cons, I don’t think I’ll bother, having 2 is a novelty anyway…
I’ll check out the BIOS SATA in a short while.