Norton may be "garbage" by your standard but my ISP gives it to me free and it says there is a virus.
WS.Reputation.1
I think you quoted the wrong post. :tongue.gif:
Anyways Norton has a pretty bad reputation in itself and WS.Reputation.1 is a pretty generic flag.
I rescanned at virustotal.com and it came back 0 out of 42 scanners flagged it. The file is clean and your software is giving a false positive. Make sure it's up to date.
P.S. - If you still want to use Since you use Norton then it may be a good idea to report the false positive to them. This url is their form to do just that. I wish I had this back when I tried out their software. They were less than helpful and never offered it to me on a previous attempt to assist.
You can give them my virustotal url link above since it's going to ask for it anyways. The md5 is provided on the first post of this thread already. Yes it will ask for that as well.
WS.Reputation.1 is a detection for files that have a low reputation score based on analyzing data from Symantec’s community of users and therefore are likely to be security risks. Detections of this type are based on Symantec’s reputation-based security technology. Because this detection is based on a reputation score, it does not represent a specific class of threat like adware or spyware, but instead applies to all threat categories.
The reputation-based system uses "the wisdom of crowds" (Symantec’s tens of millions of end users) connected to cloud-based intelligence to compute a reputation score for an application, and in the process identify malicious software in an entirely new way beyond traditional signatures and behavior-based detection techniques.
In other words it a low-reputation marker that is most likely due to the fact that's it's a relatively new file. I'd ignore the warning by Norton given the definition behind this.
EDIT: Just clarifying this post... Some text is being striked out and new text added.
Anyways Norton has a pretty bad reputation in itself and WS.Reputation.1 is a pretty generic flag.
I rescanned at virustotal.com and it came back 0 out of 42 scanners flagged it. The file is clean and your software is giving a false positive. Make sure it's up to date.
Seriously though your telling me that MSE (Microsoft security essentials?) is better than Norton. I have to laugh at that man MS total care and live one or whatever from a few years ago were utter garbage. I've heard good things about bit defender but I got no complaints from Norton Security Suite. Granted I know Norton had a bad rep and I wouldn't use it if my ISP didn't provide it free.
Thats cool I didn't mean to offend I used to fix computers for people who downloaded and installed crap after being told to disable their virus scanner. It always sends up a red flag.
Seriously though your telling me that MSE (Microsoft security essentials?) is better than Norton. I have to laugh at that man MS total care and live one or whatever from a few years ago were utter garbage. I've heard good things about bit defender but I got no complaints from Norton Security Suite. Granted I know Norton had a bad rep and I wouldn't use it if my ISP didn't provide it free.
Please oh please use the correct reply button. You are replying to the wrong post and it's going to confuse anyone.
Ahh... I see this post was directed at me somewhat. Yes they did have a bad reputation and since their support was less than helpful for me and the numerous issues I used to come across with on Norton when I used to do technical support kinda kept it that way. They fixed the performance issue but their false positive rate is still way up there. Anyways that's enough from me since this line of topic doesn't have anything to do with the op and I was only responding to the original message that was mistakenly replied to mine.
FYI - I never recommended to use MSE. A couple of others did. I personally use MSE but everyone is entitled to use whatever security software they choose to. Regardless of what others recommend.
you know how theres a rule like respect your elders, online it should be listen to tech recommendations of those with a better computer than you :tongue.gif:
Seriously though your telling me that MSE (Microsoft security essentials?) is better than Norton. I have to laugh at that man MS total care and live one or whatever from a few years ago were utter garbage. I've heard good things about bit defender but I got no complaints from Norton Security Suite. Granted I know Norton had a bad rep and I wouldn't use it if my ISP didn't provide it free.
MS Total Care WAS garbage.
But they got their act together with MSE.
you know how theres a rule like respect your elders, online it should be listen to tech recommendations of those with a better computer than you :tongue.gif:
Hehehe... Or laptop depending on what's going on. I hope the op can look into the weird artifacts that's occuring and resolve them. I suspect they may be linked into the Advanced OpenGL setting that has disappeared now. It may be permanently on. It was noted before that Occlusion Culling may of been causing artifacts in the game in 1.5.
Hehehe... Or laptop depending on what's going on. I hope the op can look into the weird artifacts that's occuring and resolve them. I suspect they may be linked into the Advanced OpenGL setting that has disappeared now. It may be permanently on. It was noted before that Occlusion Culling may of been causing artifacts in the game in 1.5.
the only bugs i've had in 1.6 is servers don't work alltogether... :sad.gif: no artifacts yet.
the only bugs i've had in 1.6 is servers don't work alltogether... :sad.gif: no artifacts yet.
I posted screenshots of it earlier along with someone else. It appears between "pixels" when you use the HD fix. It does not appear on the default texture pack. Are you using a HD texture pack (anything above x16)?
I posted screenshots of it earlier along with someone else. It appears between "pixels" when you use the HD fix. It does not appear on the default texture pack. Are you using a HD texture pack (anything above x16)?
yea i haven't noticed that in my x256 texture pack. lb photo realism. but i haven't found growing grass yet either. i'll go exploring for grass.
yea i haven't noticed that in my x256 texture pack. lb photo realism. but i haven't found growing grass yet either. i'll go exploring for grass.
edit: works for me. no pixel shift.
I just checked and I got the issue. I'll create a snapshot using your x256 version but I checked in all 3 and they had it to some degree. It actually gets worse the higher the texture size. The item in hand are seeds. Look at the lower right in between each seed.
Now that I think about it. What graphics card and driver version are you using?
I just checked and I got the issue. I'll create a snapshot using your x256 version but I checked in all 3 and they had it to some degree. It actually gets worse the higher the texture size. The item in hand are seeds. Look at the lower right in between each seed.
Now that I think about it. What graphics card and driver version are you using?
Nvidia GT 435m using driver 270.61...
i just played a new world for a bit and yup found the glitch. didn't notice it at first because of grass wasn't on the edges of things.
i just played a new world for a bit and yup found the glitch. didn't notice it at first because of grass wasn't on the edges of things.
Yea. I really didn't notice it at all until someone else pointed it out. Then again like I said it's a bug with the game itself and so I took the appropriate step and let notch know with a screenshot of it. Looks like a bunch of other bugs were reported as well.
The Minecraft Wiki says that the offset is very random and thus seems intentional.
Yes. I just checked and the offset is random but I would hope to see a fix that prevents the tall grass from going over the edge of a cliff. Another factor is what happens if a block it is on is destroyed? The tall grass should probably disappear then in that case.
I meant even the blocks it was offset to. You can make it appear to go off a cliff by simply removing the block next to the one it's technically sitting on but it does that on it's own too.
The 'HD Textures' option is greyed out for me in 2.1.0, is that because I'm still using minecraft 1.5_01? If so, is the previous version still available (didn't see it in the link in OP) ?
So my question is, ever since I've been playing minecraft since last April and I play with vanilla minecraft, 16x16 texures I get about 8-12 FPS and visual artifacts and such.
But when I use MCPATCHER HD FIX 2.1.0 and set the java heap size from 1024 to 2048 it increases the FPS to about 20FPS.
The crazy thing that I don't get is.. the higher the resolution texture pack I use the higher my FPS goes up. Like.. 32x32 I get about 40+, when I use 64x64 I get almost 90.
Without MCP Patcher and a 16x16 Texture Pack:
[Notice the lag, and the artifacts?]
Can someone please explain why my minecraft doesn't want to work on anything lower than 32x32?
I think you quoted the wrong post. :tongue.gif:
Anyways Norton has a pretty bad reputation in itself and WS.Reputation.1 is a pretty generic flag.
I rescanned at virustotal.com and it came back 0 out of 42 scanners flagged it. The file is clean and your software is giving a false positive. Make sure it's up to date.
http://www.virustotal.com/file-scan/report.html?id=85ea534ffa869167d5b200b1d8c1c13451aa02bacf3db1297a10be23bf243e4b-1306452801
P.S. -
If you still want to useSince you use Norton then it may be a good idea to report the false positive to them. This url is their form to do just that.I wish I had this back when I tried out their software. They were less than helpful and never offered it to me on a previous attempt to assist.https://submit.symantec.com/false_positive/
You can give them my virustotal url link above since it's going to ask for it anyways. The md5 is provided on the first post of this thread already. Yes it will ask for that as well.
EDIT: Here is a clarification from Norton's forums -- http://community.norton.com/t5/Norton-Internet-Security-Norton/Clarification-on-WS-Reputation-1-detection/td-p/232155
In other words it a low-reputation marker that is most likely due to the fact that's it's a relatively new file. I'd ignore the warning by Norton given the definition behind this.
EDIT: Just clarifying this post... Some text is being striked out and new text added.
Seriously though your telling me that MSE (Microsoft security essentials?) is better than Norton. I have to laugh at that man MS total care and live one or whatever from a few years ago were utter garbage. I've heard good things about bit defender but I got no complaints from Norton Security Suite. Granted I know Norton had a bad rep and I wouldn't use it if my ISP didn't provide it free.
Please oh please use the correct reply button. You are replying to the wrong post and it's going to confuse anyone.
Ahh... I see this post was directed at me somewhat. Yes they did have a bad reputation and since their support was less than helpful for me and the numerous issues I used to come across with on Norton when I used to do technical support kinda kept it that way. They fixed the performance issue but their false positive rate is still way up there. Anyways that's enough from me since this line of topic doesn't have anything to do with the op and I was only responding to the original message that was mistakenly replied to mine.
FYI - I never recommended to use MSE. A couple of others did. I personally use MSE but everyone is entitled to use whatever security software they choose to. Regardless of what others recommend.
MS Total Care WAS garbage.
But they got their act together with MSE.
MSE is definitely one of the best Antiviruses.
I would only use MSE or NOD32.
Random Minecraft Seed Generator
http://sundergaming.com/3kbcraft/map/map.html
3KillaBytes Minecraft Server Map (Tectonicus)
IP: minecraft.sundergaming.com:25565
Phantom's Survival Server [3KBCraft]
Hehehe... Or laptop depending on what's going on. I hope the op can look into the weird artifacts that's occuring and resolve them. I suspect they may be linked into the Advanced OpenGL setting that has disappeared now. It may be permanently on. It was noted before that Occlusion Culling may of been causing artifacts in the game in 1.5.
the only bugs i've had in 1.6 is servers don't work alltogether... :sad.gif: no artifacts yet.
I posted screenshots of it earlier along with someone else. It appears between "pixels" when you use the HD fix. It does not appear on the default texture pack. Are you using a HD texture pack (anything above x16)?
yea i haven't noticed that in my x256 texture pack. lb photo realism. but i haven't found growing grass yet either. i'll go exploring for grass.
edit: works for me. no pixel shift.
I just checked and I got the issue. I'll create a snapshot using your x256 version but I checked in all 3 and they had it to some degree. It actually gets worse the higher the texture size. The item in hand are seeds. Look at the lower right in between each seed.
Now that I think about it. What graphics card and driver version are you using?
Nvidia GT 435m using driver 270.61...
i just played a new world for a bit and yup found the glitch. didn't notice it at first because of grass wasn't on the edges of things.
Yea. I really didn't notice it at all until someone else pointed it out. Then again like I said it's a bug with the game itself and so I took the appropriate step and let notch know with a screenshot of it. Looks like a bunch of other bugs were reported as well.
interesting, but it still happens off cliffs making it a bug.
Yes. I just checked and the offset is random but I would hope to see a fix that prevents the tall grass from going over the edge of a cliff. Another factor is what happens if a block it is on is destroyed? The tall grass should probably disappear then in that case.
I meant even the blocks it was offset to. You can make it appear to go off a cliff by simply removing the block next to the one it's technically sitting on but it does that on it's own too.
The site linked in the OP has previous versions, but here is a link to the download list:
https://github.com/p...tcher/downloads
2.0.1 is there.
CPU and Ram:
Video card:
Nvidia GeForce 6800
256mb
Core Clock: 400mhz
Memory Clock: 800mhz
So my question is, ever since I've been playing minecraft since last April and I play with vanilla minecraft, 16x16 texures I get about 8-12 FPS and visual artifacts and such.
But when I use MCPATCHER HD FIX 2.1.0 and set the java heap size from 1024 to 2048 it increases the FPS to about 20FPS.
The crazy thing that I don't get is.. the higher the resolution texture pack I use the higher my FPS goes up. Like.. 32x32 I get about 40+, when I use 64x64 I get almost 90.
Without MCP Patcher and a 16x16 Texture Pack:
[Notice the lag, and the artifacts?]
Can someone please explain why my minecraft doesn't want to work on anything lower than 32x32?