Should I believe Consumer Reports when............

[Mystic]

And most important of all is probably a really good backup system. No matter what happens if you have everything backed up and you get attacked you can always format the hard drive and re-install the operating system, your programs, and your data. The bad guys still get defeated.

I agree with you sprintman, I can hardly even think of the 2010 Norton product as a Norton product. It scans too fast and uses too little in the way of system resources.

 

[sprintman]

I'd still like to know what haapened at Symantec? Never seen anybody turn their game around like they did. And in all my time I've never had to format a HDD, so maybe I've just been lucky?

 

[Mystic]

I wonder what happened at Symantec also, sprintman. A few years back I was completely ready to forever give up on not just Norton but also McAfee. I guess you can say that I did give up on them because for years I used Kaspersky and NOD32. The only thing I can say is that somebody somewhere at Symantec made a difference. I wish people like that would show up at McAfee, TrendMicro, and a few other companies. I will say that I have a lot of hope for the new American antivirus program-Vipre (sunbelt Software).

But it becomes depressing when you hear the same old stuff from various 'security experts' and know-it-alls on the internet and in books about how Norton is bloated software that will blog down your computer. When was the last time these experts tested Norton?

It is sort of like hearing for the rest of time how evil Microsoft is and how trashy Windows is. Makes you wonder why 95% of all desktop computers in the world still run Windows.

It would really be interesting to find out exactly what person or persons made such a difference at Symantec. Symantec really seems like an inspired company right now, at least when it comes to the Norton antivirus. There is an interesting story here somewhere that will probably never be told.

 

[sprintman]

I used MBAM, Spyware Doctor (still paid up), Counterspy, SAS,
a-squared, PREVX, Spybot, and a cloud one I can't remember as an adjunct to Panda Platinum Internet Security as they all found 'stuff'. All deleted now bar MBAM and good riddance.

 

[Mystic]

What do you mean they found stuff? What did they find?

I have used all of those programs also. I used to really like A-Squared but now apparently they have a three day trial and you have to buy the software. I guess they don't have A-Squared Free anymore. I was kind of impressed with Spyware Doctor and Counterspy. SAS never found anything but cookies and Norton can do that. PREVX I have mixed feelings about. I think time has passed Ad-Aware and Spybot Search & Destroy behind. You might want to give ThreatExpert a try and let me know what you think. I am still using MBAM and the Sophos Anti-Rootkit. ThreatExpert is still a beta. It comes from PCTools-the company that also makes Threatfire and Spyware Doctor.

From what I have been able to find out MBAM is pretty good at finding fake antivirus programs. I am not sure what to think about ThreatExpert. It is still a beta program but the concept of finding malware in memory seems good. Sophos is really good at finding hidden stuff and then you can determine yourself what to do with what it finds. It seems to me that a temporary internet file should not be hidden.

 

[sprintman]

Infections as Panda wasn't up to the job. And I Forgot Sophos and GMER, my apologies. I don't have cookies as CCLeaner used before every logoff.

 

[dkryan]

I went with NIS 2010 for the ASUS laptop. I'll download MBAM later this week and run it occasionally.

The other laptop has a paid ESET subscription through December. MBAM likely won't hurt on that one, either.

Thanks for the input.

 

[Mystic]

Have you ever tried ThreatExpert sprintman? If you ever do will you tell me what you think about it?

I discovered ThreatExpert I think at the Symantec website, of all places. It is a PCTools beta.

A long time ago I liked Panda-back in the Windows XP days. I don't care for it today.

I still like using a few things besides just Norton.

I like Norton more and more. I have tried to find some problems with it. The only things I have been able to come up with are the MaximumPC results where they shut down the Norton A/V and Norton when turned back on was not able to deal with all of the malware; the other thing is a question I have as to if Norton can be shut down by some malware. And some security experts claim that the bad guys test their software against the popular A/V programs, which would include Norton since it is number one.

 

[sprintman]

No but I wonder if that's PC Tools (owned by Symantec) ThreatFire renamed? Latest Spyware Doctor includes ThreatFire but it didn't 'play nice' with NIS 2010 so I deleted it. Waste of money that.
dkryan cleanup with CCleaner and registry with Auslogics Registry Cleaner before NIS install. defrag/optimise after install with MyDefrag 4.3.1 monthly setting. Takes a few passes to fully optimise file placement but well worthwhile.

 

[Mystic]

I didn't know that Symantec owned PCTools. That is interesting. No wonder I was able to find ThreatExpert at the Symantec website.

ThreatExpert is different than Threatfire. I have never tried MyDefrag 4.3.1. I will have to check that out.

 

[ItsuMitsubishi]

I would never touch anything made by Symantec! In fact havent used a antivirus on my PC for over 7 years now. My computer stays always on and always connected too. My internet is connected through a dedicated dummy gateway computer through simple NAT, that's too slow to do any damage (Celeron@416MHz) running XP and most ports closed. I also update my hosts file so that most malicious sites cant even communicate with my computer. I've had only bad experiences and bloatware performance with antiviral softwares. The worst offenders are the big names, they use all your processing power to gather marketing statistics than anything else.

 

[Cutehumor]

I use avast, malwarebytes antimalware, and tuneup utilities weekly to keep things smooth.

 

[Mystic]

So your advice to everybody who uses a Windows Computer is not to use any antivirus software? The current 2010 Norton A/V is MUCH faster in scanning speed than in the past and much lighter on computer resources.

A lot of people who use Linux and Mac computers feel that they don't need any antivirus software. Well, I can't speak for Linux desktops. But I know for a fact that Kaspersky, Bitdefender, and Esset (NOD32) have either beta or actual A/V software available for the Mac right now. And there may be others as well, aside from Intego and Norton.

 

[uc50ic4more]

Originally Posted By: Mystic

If Linux was more compatible with more software and hardware there would perhaps be an explosive growth in Linux desktop computers. But it never seems to happen. People have been predicting the rise of Linux (for desktop computers) for about 15 years and it never seems to happen.


I have to disagree, Mystic: I only recall 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010 as the only years that Linux was *definitely* going to take over the desktop. My money's still on 2011!

 

[XS650]

Originally Posted By: uc50ic4more

I have to disagree, Mystic: I only recall 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010 as the only years that Linux was *definitely* going to take over the desktop. My money's still on 2011!

Last year I went to 5 year intervals on my "The year of the Linux Desktop" predictions. Now I will only have to change my prediction every 5 years.

 

[sprintman]

itsumitsubishi is living in the past. Things change mate and this time for the better.

 

[Mystic]

Sorry, I thought it had been about 15 years. Several years ago (more than 5 years ago) I was considering changing to Linux. I even ran a version of Linux off a CD for a while. I used to visit a lot of Linux websites. I clearly remember at least one major Linux site predicting that Microsoft would be history in about 5 years-that Linux was going to dominate computer desktops.

It seemed reasonable to me at the time. After all, Linux was cheaper and could run on lower cost, less powerful computers. A lot of people complained about Microsoft and Windows. I myself had started out with a Windows computer but I had switched to Macs. I used Macs for several years but started to switch back to Windows when it looked like Apple was headed out of business.

I became discouraged with Linux when there never seemed to be any movement towards hardware (especially) and some software I needed being compatible with Linux. Yeah, I know. The typical Linux guy will say-you have to make Linux work for you. But I am not going to try to program software for the Linux drivers needed for scanners, photo printers, etc. It became a bad joke-when drivers for the hardware I needed were NEVER, NEVER developed.

At any rate, the years just keep going by and Linux (for desktop computers) never really seems to make any progress. I get extremely tired of the excuses also. Linux people who seem to consider themselves superior to Windows (and Mac) users telling people they have to make Linux work for themselves. Well, there are Linux people who can develop new versions of Linux operating systems. I am not a programmer, but it seems to me that if they can program an operating system, they should be able to program a driver for a printer or a scanner. How do you communicate with these people? How do you get through to them that if Linux was more useable and compatible with more software and hardware that maybe Linux WOULD take off? It is like the minds of some of these people do not work the same. Imagine what would happen to Microsoft if they developed an operating system that was totally incompatible with existing software and hardware.

Except for servers, small operating systems and special purposes, moden/routers, etc., I totally have no interest in Linux today.

 

[Mystic]

But I would love being able to use a modem/router (like some Cisco routers for example) that can use a small, secure version of Linux. Some small specialized Linux operating system designed by default to be totally secure. And I have had good luck with ISPs that used Linux servers. And I have run A/V programs such as Bitdefender, Kaspersky, Panda, and F-Secure from write-protected CDs with the A/V running in a Linux operating system.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: Mystic
But I would love being able to use a modem/router (like some Cisco routers for example) that can use a small, secure version of Linux. Some small specialized Linux operating system designed by default to be totally secure. And I have had good luck with ISPs that used Linux servers. And I have run A/V programs such as Bitdefender, Kaspersky, Panda, and F-Secure from write-protected CDs with the A/V running in a Linux operating system.


You would be interested in Cisco's more recent SMB offerings then. My AP541N runs Linux, as does the SA520, which I recently deployed as a gateway/SA/VPN device on a small LAN for one of my clients.

They are definitely less expensive than Cisco's higher-end IOS devices, and just as capable.

 

[Mystic]

If I could run a real modem/router and not have to use this Qwest piece of junk I would defintitely want to run a quality router running some small secure Linux operating system. I heard about some new Cisco routers that cost about $120.00 and run Linux. If the small Linux operating system was developed for security from the start (like OpenBSD) it should provide plenty of security.