 Poster: A snowHead
|
I use F-Secure... IMHO one of the best..
McAfee, Norton and the likes are about as nice as a skislope where the snow is gone and just the cowdung left to ski on.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
Ronald, is that a new brand of condom?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
|
laundryman, dunno, its Finnish, they may have weird habits!
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| boredsurfin wrote: |
| Frosty the Snowman, How did you dump Norton, I understood that doing so can cause problems? Did you have any? I need to do it on the Kids PC. |
In my experience, the problem with uninstalling Norton can come if it was pre-loaded onto your PC by the manufacturer.
A year or so ago I bought a laptop that kept prompting me to pay for a Norton subscription. I utterly failed to remove it myself, and when I called the manufacturer's helpdesk I was told that it was impossible to remove Norton without applying a software patch that they emailed to me (it wasn't available for download from their support site).
Apparently this was all in the name of security - if they made it easy to uninstall Norton then I might foolishly put my computer at risk. I was assured that it had nothing to do with high pressure selling techniques, and I naturally believe them without question.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| stoatsbrother wrote: |
| Wish you could schedule spybot to run automatically too. |
You can. On the left hand window click the settings, then there should be "scheduler". Click edit and away you go... (or at least on my version)
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
Got to be careful with using spybot. It's very good, but if you use the immunize option (which as I understand it is essentially the automatic option) you may find that you can't get on to some websites (spybot does actually warn that this might happen). If those sites that rely on downloading cookies on to your computer (and there's lots of 'em out there) find they can't, then they'll often just stall part way through the process. Had it happen from time to time on my old computer. With the one I've got now I've installed and run spybot, but haven't used the immunize function yet.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Phil Jordan, I agree. I don't use the immunize option but I do use "CookieSafe" and "NoScript" to block cookies and scripts by default. Sometimes you have to allow cookies in order to view the website, but the only "really important cookie that I must accept to enhance my browsing experience" was one that tested if I accepted cookies!
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
|
Hurtle, spy bot is a device used by peeping toms and pest patrol is a service to keep them at bay.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PK2, don't have that on my version. Shame - may look around.
Phil Jordan, I always have clicked the immunise option but never had any problem, but on the other hand I probably pick up about 20 spyware items a week.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
laundryman,
| Quote: |
spy bot is a device used by peeping toms and pest patrol is a service to keep them at bay
|
Sorry, don't understand. Aren't they both for detecting spyware?
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
Hurtle, it's a joke. As in espying posteriors. Feeble and juvenile, I know. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
laundryman, Duh! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
|
stoatsbrother, I've got version 1.4 if that helps in your search.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
PK2, ah ha - snap - but you have to turn on "advanced mode"
Thanks
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
stoatsbrother, Thank you, that explains it. I remembered (in the past) thinking like you wishing I could schedule scans. But I couldn't remember how I got from wondering to where my computer is scanned once a week. I'd assumed I must have updated the software at some point but it must have been I'd turned on "advanced mode". Hence I wasn't as much help I as might have been.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
|
dovver, have you statistics on slow down, or the impact of trojans/worms? (and, if possible, a list that falls outside your "most")
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
This site shows how much various programs slow the average machine down.
I don't have any stats for trojans/worms slowing machines down.
Last edited by You need to Login to know who's really who. on Mon 10-09-07 15:08; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| dovver wrote: |
Anti-virus software is a pretty useless solution to the problem, most anti-virus solutions slow your machine down more than filling it full of trojans and worms would.
|
That is just plain wrong.
As has been explained several times already in this thread, if you just bothered to read it.
Maybe most installations of AV software do that (although even then I doubt it), but that is only because most installations are of either norton or Macafee. Which are generally well known to be about the worst in terms of resource hogging.
Most AV products most certainly do not slow your machine down enough to notice in general use, never mind as much as you suggest.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
In the 2nd codinghorror.com link from my previous post is this bit of information
| Quote: |
Let's suppose somebody who is involved with incident response at a typical US public University collected a few recent malware samples from the compromised machines, and then submitted all the samples to VirusTotal for scanning against all current anti-virus and anti-virus-like products. What do you think the average detection rate is?
Let me give you the answer: it is 33%. In other words, the average detection rate of malware from these "solutions" was 33%, with the maximum at 50% and the minimum at 2%. Keep this number in mind, that shiny anti-virus product you just bought might be protecting you from just 2% of currently active and common malware (not some esoteric and custom uber-haxor stuff)!
I have to conclude what many security pundits were blabbing about for years: "mainstream" anti-virus is finally DEAD. It's a weak excuse for defense-in-depth, in about the same sense as wearing an extra shirt provides "another security layer" in a gun fight.
|
Read into it what you like, I'm just saying that they aren't really solutions to the problem.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| dovver wrote: |
This site shows how much various programs slow the average machine down.
I don't have any stats for trojans/worms slowing machines down. |
OK, so, according to that site, ad-aware slows the boot by 1%, but has no effect on performance after that. And your reason for not using it is what?
Also, please fidn some stats on what trojans/worms do before saying that they have less impact than anti-virus!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
dovver, in the 2nd link, I read this bit of spin:
"Not only does anti-virus cripple your machine's performance, it doesn't even protect you adequately! Even if your anti-virus or anti-malware solution is catching an incredibly optimistic 90% of threats, all it takes is one new, undetected threat to get through and your machine is thoroughly 0wned."
OK, so the stats have proved conclusively that anti-virus is not crippling my computer performance, as shown on the previous page, so he's wrong on his first claim. Then he says that if you have antivirus, something gets through and it won't be fixed. Um, that only applies until a fix is made available, which will then remove the virus.
That site is proof, if proof were needed, that it's not just skiing sites where anyone can claim to be an expert, and start spouting words and phrases to try to sound clever, when they haven't got a baldy notion!
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
surely most people take advantage of the boot-up time by making a cup of coffee 
Last edited by You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net. on Mon 10-09-07 15:31; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ok, bad comparison, let me state that it isn't because of any slowdown that I don't run a virus checker - it's because they don't work properly, they don't catch everything, they give false hope that they're doing a job that they don't quite do properly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
dovver, so, you'd rather have no protection whatsoever than have some protection (which if you keep up to date will do their job properly)?
Regarding the guy at codinghorror, I wonder does his company hold to his principles - no anti-virus, no firewall, no anti-spyware, no spam filters...
I somehow suspect not.
Strangely enough, I'd hazzard a gues that 97% of people who post on snowHeads are using their computers at below 25% of their performance. The gamers/animators/designers will be using their graphics cards more than most, but the processors will be sitting at or below 30% for most of the day.
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
Wear The Fox Hat, I've not had a virus in 15 years, so I don't really require anti virus software, I do occasionally check my machine like I said earlier though - last night was the first time I've virus checked my current pc which is about a year old. I know enough about computers to avoid viruses, if you have a decent firewall and don't run with local admin rights, viruses will find it hard to compromise your pc.
Businesses are a totally different kettle of fish, you have staff in a business, you have to presume they're going to screw things up.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Wear The Fox Hat wrote: |
| dovver, ......Strangely enough, I'd hazzard a gues that 97% of people who post on snowHeads are using their computers at below 25% of their performance. |
Agreed. When I was doing regular LA to Heathrow flights, I would clock my Toshiba laptop down to its lowest CPU speed (using W98) and quiesce the hard disk, so that I could complete my reports/proposals by the time I got home. I could do this using a fully charged battery and a spare swapped in half way through. The impact on the speed of Word and Excel was negligible but it did save a huge amount of battery power.
By the way, I'm a Kaspersky fan.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
jtr, I was tempted to go to 10%, but that might be harder to back up (particularly for Vista users, who, due to their OS, will already be at 20% just to turn it on  )
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
Yes I know I'm repeating myself  but here's a quote from
http://www.pcpro.co.uk/labs/120448/kaspersky-antivirus-7.html
"Not only is Kaspersky effective, it's efficient, too: during the email scan test, total system RAM usage was close to the lowest of the group. It's refreshing to find an antivirus package that's so respectful of resources. As we noted in August, "all email, files and downloaded web content are scanned in real-time, yet the impact upon system resources is negligible thanks to the ability to suspend scanning operations during resource-intensive user operations. This resource throttling ... lifts Kaspersky above most of the competition."
Have you bought it yet BernardC ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
All jtr, others and I are trying to say is that there are a few small classes of users for whom anti-virus software is either unnecessary or a nuisance. Unless you're employed by Symantic, I don't think that's particularly controversial. I accept that most users don't know how to protect themselves and others from malware without it, but some people do. Why is that so hard to accept?
I find the whole performance argument puzzling, too. Of course anti-virus software has an impact on performance as, at the very least, it has to intercept all I/O operations and periodically scan all storage. Does that matter? Not if your PC isn't hanging precariously on the edge of existence. But if your system is on the cusp between RAM-based operation or extensive swap-file usage, the performance impact can be immense. It might be uncommon, but if you're that person it makes a huge difference.
There's no doubt that businesses need anti-virus protection, because it's impossible to trust all your staff not to be stupid. If you have kids or technophobes in the family, anti-virus is a no-brainer; it's why I use it. If you have valuable data that's not backed up, you need protection. If you can't afford some very occasional downtime (once every 15 years?), you need anti-virus. But those things aren't true for us all.
And jtr points out one extremely important fact. Ant-virus software can never offer anything more than a partial solution, so you still need education and caution if you want protection. Anyone who tells you otherwise is a technological fool. Ignore them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
Jonny Jones, Thanks for the accolades but I didn't actually say any of that.
All I said was that I agreed with Wear The Fox Hat that for most users, their PC has an excess of power, over and above that required to do most Word and Excel (for example) tasks. The same applies to internet use.
IMHO, this excess capacity can be used to perform anti-virus and firewall functions without any noticeable impact, apart from, of course, on start-up where they all have to (or should do) some checking and look for their latest definitions updates.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
Whoops - meant to refer to dovver. Sorry, jtr!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
's are a veritable mine of information.
boy .....