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

[Mystic]

Well, OVERKILL, you have attacked me a lot. So let us take a look at a few things.

Ordinary computer users have to get advice from somewhere. I put down relying on the unknown 'Joe Blow' on the internet. I said it was a better idea to rely on some reputable organization that does testing. Now maybe you know better than Consumer Reports, and maybe you have more testing facilities and access to testing organizations than Consumer Reports. I said elsewhere here that I don't rely on Consumer Reports as the last word. I rely on what I can find out from sources like avComparatives, West Coast Labs, Virus Bulletin, the Secunia Security Website, Wilders Security Forums, Microsoft, Symantec, the IT people where I work, etc. Do you have any problem with relying on these sources of information? In case you did not know in the last avComparatives testing that I am aware of Norton detected more threats than Kaspersky. In fact, several A/V programs detected more threats than Kaspersky-even McAfee.

Do you have a problem with my suggesting that a person should use a standard account to try to improve security? Or do you recommend using the admin account? Every reputable security expert I can think of suggests using a standard account. So what exactly is wrong with my suggesting that a person use a standard account for day to day operations? Does this conflict in any way with what most experts say? Is it not true that using a standard account rather than an admin account at least somewhat increases security?

I myself have suggested layers of protection and a good hardware firewall. I have suggested a person could use programs like MBAM, SAS, and A-Squared. Do you have any problems with this advice? I believe you recommended a few of these things yourself. Only you can recommend these things and nobody else can?

It takes a lot of resources, expertise, and money to test A/V programs. CR did testing. How accurate is their testing? I don't know. Do you know? According to their testing NOD32 did not do very well against online web threats. In 2009 PCPro Magazine, a British computer magazine, tested several A/V programs. They made use of 100 known bad actual websites and actual malware. NOD32 did not do well in the testing against the known bad web sites. Panda was the worst of all against the known bad web sites in that testing.

In testing that I have seen Norton recently seems to tend to be somewhere near the top. This was true in the CR testing. It was true in testing done by PCMagazine. It was true in testing done by avComparatives. Are they all wrong? Who is right? Who exactly does the average person turn to for advice?

You know nothing about me. You know nothing about the people I know who have written software for Unix and Windows. You know nothing about my nephews who are computer geniuses.

I personally worked with a programmer when our new equipment was setup. We have custom made computer software and some of it was written by our own people. I work with IT all the time. Instead of you personally attacking me I would like to see where I have given bad advice.

 

[Mystic]

And while I am at it, we need to go over a few other things.

You call me a keyboard jockey. I will not use some nonsense term to refer to you because I am an adult.

I pointed out that I am not an expert on computer software or hardware. People are voicing their opinions here. Do I not have a right to voice my opinions? I will continue to voice my opinions. If you have a problem with that go to a moderator.

I am not voicing my opinions just on what CR found in their testing. In fact I stated here (twice I believe)that I don't rely on CR for the final word on anything. I am voicing my opinions based on information I have obtained from numerous sources.

You put down what I said about Windows being what I feel is the best operating system available today for desktops. And then you say exactly the same stuff that I said myself! You say the biggest problem is the person staring at the computer monitor. Did I not say that no security hardware and software can defend against people who go to the wrong places on the internet, download junk, etc.? Maybe you better read again what I have said before you attack me personally.

I have actually said much the same stuff that you yourself have said. I have recommended layers of security including a good hardware firewall. I have said that a person can defeat all of their security software by downloading unknown junk from the internet and going to the wrong places. I have recommended some of the very same software that you have recommended.

But nobody can say anything here except for computer experts like you. The rest of us must stay silent. We are not allowed to voice our opinions.

Well, I will continue to voice my opinions.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: Mystic
Well, OVERKILL, you have attacked me a lot. So let us take a look at a few things.


No, I didn't "attack you a lot", I attacked some of the generalizations that you stated. And I will respond point-by-point below.

Quote:
Ordinary computer users have to get advice from somewhere. I put down relying on the unknown 'Joe Blow' on the internet.


Yes, you did. Now, would you not technically classify yourself as being one of those Joe Blows though?

Quote:
I said it was a better idea to rely on some reputable organization that does testing.


I agree with this. But think there are better sources than Consumer Reports.

Quote:
Now maybe you know better than Consumer Reports, and maybe you have more testing facilities and access to testing organizations than Consumer Reports.


My "testing organization" is the organization I work for. We have multiple offices, and many times the user will get their own AV software for either their personal PC, or a laptop they've picked up. This gives me a LOT of experience with a huge range of antiviral software over the course of years. Not single tests. Years of accumulated experience with a wide range of programs.

Quote:
I said elsewhere here that I don't rely on Consumer Reports as the last word. I rely on what I can find out from sources like avComparatives, West Coast Labs, Virus Bulletin, the Secunia Security Website, Wilders Security Forums, Microsoft, Symantec, the IT people where I work, etc. Do you have any problem with relying on these sources of information?


I think those are great sources of information. Why didn't you recommend them to the OP?

Quote:
In case you did not know in the last avComparatives testing that I am aware of Norton detected more threats than Kaspersky. In fact, several A/V programs detected more threats than Kaspersky-even McAfee.


Norton has always had decent detection rates as far back as I can remember, which would be the MS-DOS days. The problem was not with the capability of their product. It was the bloat that USED to come with it. It has gotten progressively better over these last few years. Whilst McAfee has gone downhill....fast.

Quote:
Do you have a problem with my suggesting that a person should use a standard account to try to improve security? Or do you recommend using the admin account? Every reputable security expert I can think of suggests using a standard account. So what exactly is wrong with my suggesting that a person use a standard account for day to day operations? Does this conflict in any way with what most experts say? Is it not true that using a standard account rather than an admin account at least somewhat increases security?


Come now, you can do better than that. I simply disagreed with your statement that a standard user account prevents the rest of the system from being infected. Because it doesn't. It reduces the risk, sure, but it does not eliminate it.

Quote:
I myself have suggested layers of protection and a good hardware firewall. I have suggested a person could use programs like MBAM, SAS, and A-Squared. Do you have any problems with this advice? I believe you recommended a few of these things yourself. Only you can recommend these things and nobody else can?


Why would I have a problem with that advice, since it goes hand-in-hand with my own? I CLEARLY stated my issue in my post. And that is with the idea that a single suite of software can be viewed as some sort of all-encompassing protection mechanism when in fact it cannot.

That was the "spin" your discussion on Norton 2010 had taken, and so I decided to take issue with it.

While the points you make in this post; albeit likely due to their defencive nature, are much more "in tune" with my own, this was not the case in terms of the "tone" of the thread.

Quote:
It takes a lot of resources, expertise, and money to test A/V programs.


Yes, if you are a testing institution, I imagine it does. It requires all of those things to do ANY sort of large scale testing. It doesn't necessarily means the results are going to be all that indicative of real-world performance however.

Quote:
CR did testing. How accurate is their testing? I don't know. Do you know? According to their testing NOD32 did not do very well against online web threats.


Yes, they did. And in my experience, NOD32 performs "on par" with Norton 2010 in terms of basic web threat performance. I'm using NOD32 v4.

Quote:
In 2009 PCPro Magazine, a British computer magazine, tested several A/V programs. They made use of 100 known bad actual websites and actual malware. NOD32 did not do well in the testing against the known bad web sites. Panda was the worst of all against the known bad web sites in that testing.


That's a rather small scope of sites unfortunately. That's why I made my point about them all having different detection databases.

Quote:
In testing that I have seen Norton recently seems to tend to be somewhere near the top. This was true in the CR testing. It was true in testing done by PCMagazine. It was true in testing done by avComparatives. Are they all wrong?


I don't believe I stated Norton was ineffective ANYWHERE in this thread? Simply that the pedestal you were putting it on was a bit too grand.


Quote:
You know nothing about me. You know nothing about the people I know who have written software for Unix and Windows. You know nothing about my nephews who are computer geniuses.

I personally worked with a programmer when our new equipment was setup. We have custom made computer software and some of it was written by our own people. I work with IT all the time. Instead of you personally attacking me I would like to see where I have given bad advice.


I quoted your bad advice. The idea that somebody can go "surf silly" with complete disregard for their browsing habits because they have NIS 2010, the MALWARE TERMINATOR!

You clearly skimmed my post. I covered most of these things. It was not geared as an attack against you, though I can easily see how it could be viewed as such. Rather the mentality that somebody can put a single piece of software on their computer and be completely safe. Which is a farce. If that was not the message you were attempting to convey, well, then I'm sorry, but that was the message that was coming across. If you look back through your posts, you will see that.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: Mystic
And while I am at it, we need to go over a few other things.

You call me a keyboard jockey. I will not use some nonsense term to refer to you because I am an adult.


Actually, no, I was referring to people who post advice carelessly on the Internet as keyboard jockeys. While I was replying to you, that term was not directed at you personally.

Quote:
I pointed out that I am not an expert on computer software or hardware.


You did. But your posts often have a tone that would indicate otherwise. I believe I quoted a few of those lines.

Quote:
People are voicing their opinions here.


Well, only about three of us actually

Besides the OP of course.

Quote:
Do I not have a right to voice my opinions? I will continue to voice my opinions. If you have a problem with that go to a moderator.


If I have a problem with what you state, I will quote it and address it, as I have previously done. This can all be discussed in a civil manner and everybody has the right to voice their opinion. I simply think that the weight of that opinion should be recognized. It is up to the person voicing that opinion to make clear the sources of their information. Be it personal experience, a magazine or otherwise.

Quote:
I am not voicing my opinions just on what CR found in their testing. In fact I stated here (twice I believe)that I don't rely on CR for the final word on anything. I am voicing my opinions based on information I have obtained from numerous sources.


I realize that. But the wording of your last statement, the one I quoted, specifically referenced Consumer Reports, then digressed into a personal "conclusion" which I don't feel was founded.

Quote:
You put down what I said about Windows being what I feel is the best operating system available today for desktops.


No I didn't. I put down the idea that NIS 2010 will turn Windows into an iron fortress. Which is what I felt the message of that post was. I said nothing about Windows. I don't believe I've discussed Windows in ANY real depth in this thread?

Quote:
And then you say exactly the same stuff that I said myself! You say the biggest problem is the person staring at the computer monitor.


It is! You seem to not be recognizing what PART of the post I was taking issue with. It was not your position on Windows.

Quote:
Did I not say that no security hardware and software can defend against people who go to the wrong places on the internet, download junk, etc.? Maybe you better read again what I have said before you attack me personally.


In your last few posts, no you didn't. If you did earlier in the thread.... I missed it. It was more the sweeping generalizations about NIS 2010's ability to "super protect" that I was taking issue with. That should have been quite clear in my post.

Quote:
I have actually said much the same stuff that you yourself have said. I have recommended layers of security including a good hardware firewall. I have said that a person can defeat all of their security software by downloading unknown junk from the internet and going to the wrong places. I have recommended some of the very same software that you have recommended.

But nobody can say anything here except for computer experts like you. The rest of us must stay silent. We are not allowed to voice our opinions.

Well, I will continue to voice my opinions.


I don't believe I ever stated you were unwelcome to voice your opinion. What I WOULD suggest however may be the selection of your wording as describing a product's capabilities. While you inferred hardware protection and a host of other things at various times, this may have been missed by the glossy-eyed layman skimming the thread and who then arrives at the conclusion that NIS 2010 will be their ultimate saviour based on your last few posts

 

[Mystic]

I never said that a single piece of software can defend a computer. I have said again and again, that a person needs a good hardware firewall, and I have recommended products like MBAM, SAS, and A-Squared again and again. I have said again and again in posts that the person behind the computer can defeat their own security software if they do foolish things.

I am impressed with Norton 2010. It is much better than where Norton was a few years ago. I think I have a right to be impressed with a piece of software. I personally have experience with NOD32 missing Trojan Horse programs.

The discussion here started with what CR had stated in a magazine article about the results of their A/V testing. I did not bring up information that I have obtained from avComparatives, VirusBulletin, West Coast Labs, etc. Do I need to do this every time I comment on anything?

I never suggested that somebody, regardless if they are using Norton or whatever, can go 'surf silly' and visit any website they want just because they were using a certain A/V. In fact I have stated that even legit websites could have been poisoned with malware. Driveby downloads in my opinion are more dangerous than zero day attacks. But excuse me-I am not allowed to have an opinion since I am not a computer expert.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: Mystic
I never said that a single piece of software can defend a computer. I have said again and again, that a person needs a good hardware firewall, and I have recommended products like MBAM, SAS, and A-Squared again and again. I have said again and again in posts that the person behind the computer can defeat their own security software if they do foolish things.

I am impressed with Norton 2010. It is much better than where Norton was a few years ago. I think I have a right to be impressed with a piece of software. I personally have experience with NOD32 missing Trojan Horse programs.

The discussion here started with what CR had stated in a magazine article about the results of their A/V testing. I did not bring up information that I have obtained from avComparatives, VirusBulletin, West Coast Labs, etc. Do I need to do this every time I comment on anything?


No, but I think in this particular instance it would have been quite valuable actually!

Quote:
I never suggested that somebody, regardless if they are using Norton or whatever, can go 'surf silly' and visit any website they want just because they were using a certain A/V. In fact I have stated that even legit websites could have been poisoned with malware. Driveby downloads in my opinion are more dangerous than zero day attacks. But excuse me-I am not allowed to have an opinion since I am not a computer expert.


This statement:

Originally Posted By: Mystic
Really the only problem with Windows computers is computer security and once a person has a good security program like Norton Windows becomes the best desktop computer operating system that there is.


Can't you picture somebody reading that and thinking "awesome, I go get NIS 2010 and I'm SET!!!!"

The rest of my issue was simply your seeming disdain for NOD32. Sorry, I've seen EVERY antivirus product miss something. Often MANY things. Including NIS 2010. A single trojan would not cause me to conclude that the product is junk.

 

[sprintman]

Overkill I am referring to home use and corporate use, I thought I made that clear? If not my apologies...s

 

[Mystic]

Well, I was not trying to mislead anybody. Perhaps somebody could get the wrong idea about what I said. So I will elaborate a little more.

I used Apple Computers for a long time. For several reasons I decided to return to Windows. I am not going into all of that. For me, Windows works. Windows has really good software and hardware compatibility. I will give one example: My CS3 copy of Photoshop will work perfectly good in Windows 7. My CS3 copy of Photoshop for the Mac will NOT work in the most recent verrsion of Mac OS X.

A Windows computer also can be reasonable in price. I don't care too much about all-in-one computers. I prefer a separate monitor, etc. Well, the Mac Pro is $2700.00 and up (no monitor).

For me, Windows is the best CURRENT solution as a desktop computer operating system. Who knows what will happen in the future. I like computer hardware and software technology but I don't worship any technology, computer software or hardware company, computer CEO, computer operating system, etc.

I feel the only major problem with Windows has been security issues. If you have adequate security for a Windows computer I feel that a Windows computer is great. I did not mean to imply that the Norton 2010 A/V by itself would provide all of the security a person needs. Really, the biggest security issue of all is the computer user. A person has to use good common sense and not do foolish things.

Now, I understand you really like NOD32. I did too. I have used mostly NOD32 and Kaspersky for several years. But I was very unhappy when Spyware Doctor caught Trojan Horse programs that NOD32 missed. I also became unhappy with Kasperksy a while back.

I am also aware that no single anti-malware program is perfect. Syamntec/Norton funded a study that was done by an independent testing lab. I can't remember what the study was called. Three programs tested far above the other programs that were tested. The three standouts were Norton, Kasperksy, and TrendMicro (against web threats). Anyway, in the conclusion the independent lab said that no A/V program was more than about 80% effective overall. I remembered that. So I try to use good sense on the internet and I use layers of protection. I have used programs like A-Squared, MBAM, and SAS for a long time. The free versions of these programs do not run in real time and conflict with an A/V. By using programs like this and overlapping security a person may approach 100% detection.

I am excited about the current Norton A/V. It is very nice that a program I had written off for dead could make such a comeback. It would be nice if McAfee could make such a comeback (but I am not expecting that).

 

[sprintman]

I used VMS now OpenVMS. Nothing has matched it. $1$shutdown anybody?

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
Rather the mentality that somebody can put a single piece of software on their computer and be completely safe.


There is a single piece of software on one's computer that one can remove and render it completely safe; it's called Windows. Sorry, I couldn't resist.

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: Mystic
I feel the only major problem with Windows has been security issues. If you have adequate security for a Windows computer I feel that a Windows computer is great. I did not mean to imply that the Norton 2010 A/V by itself would provide all of the security a person needs. Really, the biggest security issue of all is the computer user. A person has to use good common sense and not do foolish things.


That's not only a major problem with Windows; it's a fatal flaw. MS now trying to entrench some sort of administrator security is like locking the barn door five release cycles after the horse already escaped.

What really appalls me is that people use all this additional security software, from anti-virus to anti-spyware, and think this is normal and acceptable. It's like buying a brand new car and finding there is no structural integrity and going out to install a roll cage.

Microsoft has been releasing various versions of an unsafe operating system for years. Instead of fixing anything except the most glaring and dangerous problems, they let other companies do the work and bill the consumers for it. They pay money for an inferior and incomplete operating system, then go out and buy security software? This is acceptable?

Aside from the cost and nuisance factor, even if it were free (which for some it is), it's still a waste of system resources. I haven't had a Windows box for over a decade and I'm not going back anytime soon. I don't do Macs, either. I don't need to spend money on an incomplete operating system, niche hardware, or security software.

 

[Mystic]

You did not mention what operating system you use. I would guess some version of Linux?

If I use your operating system will it be compatible with Photoshop? Is there a program available that would make it possible for me to share files with Microsoft Office? Will my Epson photo printer and Epson scanner be compatible with this operating system? And I am not talking about running WINE either. The printers and scanners and external hard drives and everything else need to be compatible.

If I can't use my photo printer, my scanner, Photoshop, etc., in your operating system, your operating system is useless to me.

 

[Mystic]

It is not the operating system that counts. It is what people can do with the operating system. The operating system should be able to disappear into the background and allow people to do whatever they need to do.

Too many people worship operating systems. As time goes by there will be new and improved operating systems. The operating systems that people use will be those operating systems that allow them to do whatever they need to do.

I have used Windows and Apple Computers extensively. Do you think it really matters in Photoshop, other than some different keystrokes, if I am using Photoshop on a Windows or an Apple Computer?

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: Mystic
If I can't use my photo printer, my scanner, Photoshop, etc., in your operating system, your operating system is useless to me.


Yes, I use Linux. I don't know what the best equivalent to Photoshop is in Linux, since it's not a product I need. As for Epson products, they are notoriously unfriendly to Linux. I specifically avoided them in my printer purchase for that reason alone.

As for Microsoft Office, I share files with it all the time, and I do so using a free office program. External hard drives are not an issue, nor are most USB devices.

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: Mystic
It is not the operating system that counts. It is what people can do with the operating system. The operating system should be able to disappear into the background and allow people to do whatever they need to do.


Windows does not disappear into the background, by any stretch of the imagination. The entire updating regime in Windows is flawed. In Linux, you can update everything (and I mean everything) at once. You don't update your Firefox separately from your Adobe products and separately from your antivirus and separately from your operating system. It's all one step.

It's also nice to not have to bother running things like an AV and Spybot in the background to ensure something nasty doesn't happen.

 

[Mystic]

You see, if all I did with a computer was type up a few letters and memos (OpenOffice), maybe print out some of those on a printer that would work in Linux, and go online and read email, Linux would work fine for me. And Linux does work fine for many people.

But some people do more than that. And Windows, no matter how badly you may dislike Microsoft and Windows, is very compatible with software and hardware. The Mac is also, to a lesser degree.

There has already been a huge discussion here about all of this. Apparently it is not very likely that Linux drivers for various photo printers, scanners, etc., will be developed.

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.

Linux works for some people. And there are many Linux servers and those servers work fine (although a British security firm did some research and claimed that Linux servers are attacked more than any other kind of server). And Linux works as very compact operating systems for specialized purposes (like in some routers, for example).

I don't have anything against Linux. It is just technology. It is just a kind of computer operating system. Make it work for ME.

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: Mystic
But some people do more than that. And Windows, no matter how badly you may dislike Microsoft and Windows, is very compatible with software and hardware. The Mac is also, to a lesser degree.

There has already been a huge discussion here about all of this. Apparently it is not very likely that Linux drivers for various photo printers, scanners, etc., will be developed.

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.

Linux works for some people. And there are many Linux servers and those servers work fine (although a British security firm did some research and claimed that Linux servers are attacked more than any other kind of server). And Linux works as very compact operating systems for specialized purposes (like in some routers, for example).


Don't blame Linux if your printer doesn't work with it. If Epson decides to only release Windows drivers and not release anything into the open source, that's not the fault of Linux. The only option in such a case is to hope that someone cobbles together a driver that might make the hardware work.

HP has no problems with providing drivers or releasing source code for printers and scanners. NVidia does the same thing with their video cards. ATI is behind. Guess which video card and printer I bought? If a hardware manufacturer has no interest in supporting potential Linux customers, then I have no interest in buying their hardware, end of story. ATI and Epson weren't even on my radar for those purchases, simply because of their lack of support. It was their loss, not mine. Neither of them manufacture must-have products.

I've had a lot less problems with hardware than many of my associates who switched from XP to Vista or 7. When I installed a new NIC, I was a little concerned, since the manufacturer included the source code and I expected to have to compile from source (they had four packages). It worked immediately when plugged in. Just about all hardware does that in Linux, with no drivers to download. Very few pieces of hardware require any downloads whatsoever.

As for how software works in MS, well, I haven't experienced any crashes in Linux. My Windows experiences have not been so glorious.

With respect to security, of course Linux servers are attacked more often than others. Linux owns the server market. People trying to run DDOS don't always check what kind of server they're targeting, they just do it. The server probably runs Linux, so that's what happens.

"Make it work for ME." The idea of Linux is to make it work for yourself. You use the software you want, not a bunch of pre-packaged nonsense. You can choose to run anti-virus if you run a mail server or wish to protect your Windows hobbled associates. You don't have to run it, though. Linux doesn't require you to run a bunch of garbage processes in the background, nor does it make it difficult to get rid of unwanted processes permanently.

The best part is that Linux doesn't abide planned obsolescence. I can get new versions of Linux for free indefinitely. I don't need to renew a subscription (like antivirus) nor buy the new version when it's released and the old one is no longer supported, then find out my hardware is insufficient.

 

[Cory]

Been using Norton product for years without problems and/or viruses. I also like how the newer Norton 360 allows you to upgrade to the newer version for FREE while you subscription is still valid.

 

[Mystic]

Cory, unlike you and Sprintman I am not allowed to say anything here without being attacked. But I am not going to allow some people to silence me.

I like the new Norton also. It is a vast improvement compared to where Norton was a few years ago. I have a few issues with Kaspersky but it is very good also (a little too expensive). There are some people who say all A/V programs are the same-just pick any one. But certain ones seem to test the best year after year, so I think it makes sense to pick one of the ones that test good every year.

Now, in order to avoid being attacked, I have to insert the following: Obviously a person has to use common sense on the internet. If you do certain things on the internet and go to the darker areas of the internet you are bound to be attacked with malware. Just going to a legit website can be dangerous today because the website may have been poisoned with malware without the knowledge of the people running the website. And it pays to run more than one program to defend against malware. You don't want programs interfering with each other so the other programs could be ones that don't run in real time. For example, I like ThreatExpert and Malwarebyte's Anti-Malware, and the Sophos Anti-Rootkit. A person could of course just depend on their firewall and A/V/anti-spyware program but it is probably safer to use a few additional programs that will not interfere with the A/V. I guess now I can't be accused of being a keyboard jockey and encouraging people to do any crazy thing on the internet they can think of.

I am very unhappy with a lot of so-called security experts today. I can think of one guy who said if people want security on the internet they should use a Mac. Well, when he said that, there was not much in the way of malware for the Mac. But not everybody wants to use a Mac, if everybody was using one Macs would probably become a major target, and telling people to use Macs does nothing for all the people who use Windows. Telling people to use Linux does nothing to help the people who use Windows. I can think of other security experts who brag about how they use no A/V program on their computers. Well, that can work if somebody is an expert, and has some really great hardware and software firewalls, etc. But that is a very poor suggestion for the majority of people who use Windows computers. I can think of at least one guy who bascally said that people can pick any A/V program-they are all the same. Well, some A/V programs run better than others and use fewer system resources. And if all of them are the same why do some test at the top or near the top every year?

Some of the programs I mentioned above are free. For example, there is a free version of Malwarebyte's Anti-Malware. And you can get Threatexpert and the Sophos Anti-Rootkit for free. I think these programs are very good because if you ever get something on your computer don't count on ANY A/V program removing the stuff. Threatexpert (with Heap Memory scanning enabled) can find stuff in memory. And the Sophos Anti-Rootkit is the best anti-rootkit for finding hidden files in my opinion. Don't underestimate what MBAM can do for you also. There tend to be certain areas where a lot of malware tries to hide, such as the Windows\System32 folder, registry autostart locations and in hidden temporary internet files and hidden temporary files.

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: Mystic
I like the new Norton also. It is a vast improvement compared to where Norton was a few years ago.


I'm glad Norton is improving again. The last time I had a Windows box was with Windows 98, and Norton was pretty good then; I had used it for a long time and was always happy with it. One could buy simply Norton AV, with none of the extraneous nonsense, or one could buy the big pack of bloatware. Then the bloatware became the norm, and the price increases were staggering. The yearly subscription a couple years back exceeded what I paid for Norton for my Win 98 machine, and it had a $10 annual subscription.