Le site techsupportforum.com est-il sûr ?

I was on this site trying to understand svchost.exe and was directed to a link within the sight and all it did was take me to a dead end page unrelated to the link itself. It wanted me to download another program. I finally, after loading the page several times found a small sentence that read (continue to external link) but it was very hard to find and if I was inexperienced I probably would have downloaded the program (which who knows if it is safe but it was unnecessary) thinking that is what I was supposed to do. I will never visit this sight again. There are plenty of really great sights out there which I should have checked out in the first place.

While not necessarily offering "dangerous" advice, the "Tech Team" members are a closely-knit group that seem to do little other than reinforce each other's dogmatic viewpoints on technical issues, even when they are incorrect. They often rely on personal anecdotes to supply their advice, and absolutely refuse to acknowledge empirical data obtained by field experts through careful, thorough, and accurate testing. They also close any threads that attempt to shed light on these shortcomings, making it impossible to provide correct information. They seem to have misunderstandings on some of the finer technical aspects of some things, and rather than being open to expert opinion, they choose to rely on the fact that they "build/repair computers" so they know best, and blatantly admit choosing to ignore test results obtained by true experts. Simply being an IT professional and knowing how to assemble or repair a computer does not necessarily make you an expert in all aspects of hardware tech support, something good IT professionals freely acknowledge. One key to being a good tech is being *open* to expert advice and data - something this group absolutely refuses. Attempts to debate issues which included clear expert references, links, and hard data were met with nothing more than ad hominem verbal attacks by the Tech Team members, straw man arguments in which they argued against a broader point that had not been made, statements that their own experience outweighed both expert opinion and contrasting anecdotal experience, and simple repetition of their same dogmatic statement over and over. I would absolutely not recommend this site for accurate technical information.