[bLue_oNioN]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephonovich Who gets bombarded with that many virii, though?

Last year, over a third of all businesses worldwide were hit hard. On average, about 100,000USD was spent per incident in cleaning up after attacks. Both statistics were significantly higher than what was reported previous years. Both statistics are also staggering in magnitude and provide more than enough proof, I believe, to justify the taking of serious steps in combating viral threats.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephonovich Norton and McAfee... well, let's just say I hated them passionately. Consumed system resources like there was no tomorrow, was slow to scan... piece of crap.

I use Symantec Antivirus Corporate Edition so NAV's interface is a thing of the past for me. I used NAV three years in a row though, and found no such slow-downs. Scantimes were fast as well. In fact, Norton is known to have a good compromise between a proper balance of speed and thoroughness.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephonovich Plus, I hate their marketing. They feed off the fear of Joe Sixpack, which is something I detest. Have you seen their ads in magazines? "You could download a virus that wipes out your entire hard drive." Very few virii actually wipe out your whole HD. Most just delete files, corrupt your Windows instlallation, or sometimes, just spread and bog down the internet.

Boot sector virii are common enough and can easily royally bork your system.

As for the virii you speak of, those that delete files, corrupt Windows installations, and spread/bog down the internet... well, all I can say is, those are inconveniences I would rather not deal with.

I'm on your side when it comes to feeding off Joe Sixpack's fear, but to be fair, they are hardly the only company to do so. In fact, I would say that every antivirus/firewall/corporate solution advertisement I have seen to date starts with a claim that is mostly made to grab attention. It's a reality of advertising and marketing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephonovich The final straw, however, was when they wanted me to pay for virus updates. Uh-uh. I hate software companies that do that. I got around it for awhile by setting the clock back (how stupid are they? I've seen more secure shareware before), and then realized it was stupid, because I was fighting to keep a product around that I hated anyway.

I am not sure about NAV2004 since as stated earlier I used SAV CE, but with previous versions, a reinstall was all that was needed. Setting the clock back, from my experience, was not necessary.

I also believe the paying for updates has been blown completely out of proportion. The last time I checked, Norton Antivirus 2005 was available from Office Depot for about 10 dollars with free shipping -- and that is with a full year's update license.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephonovich Half of a decent anti-virus suite is educating the user. Don't download stuff of dubious origin (or open email attachments) and there's half your battle.

Absolutely. But there are instances in which things can and will sneak through -- some people will not be affected their entire lifetime by not running antivirus, but some will. It's just like insurance. Not everyone who buys insurance will get hit by a car or come down with cancer. There are those that will play with probability and say "I am a very careful person, I watch where I go, I watch what I eat, I do not need to spend thousands of dollars per year on premiums."

But among those people, there will be those that do get hit with cars, and do come down with cancer. God be with them and their families, spiritually and financially, if they do.

As I stated in the very beginning, there may be a chance I'm paying for something unnecessary, but I'm not willing to take the risk. More power to you if you are.

 

[Mr.PD]

I haven't any issues with how Norton 2004 has been working. The only trouble I had with Norton was a few years ago, I tried one of their system works and it crashed my computer a couple times before I gave up and just loaded the anti virus part of it.

I'm not opposed to paying for subscriptions. Somebody has to be paying these guys for the work they do. I just thought there might be something better than what I have. Ya know ................. upgrade-itis

 

[RYCeT]

Used norton systemwork pro 2003 and Sygate firewall. Very happy user

 

[bLue_oNioN]

Quote:

Originally Posted by RYCeT Used norton systemwork pro 2003 and Sygate firewall. Very happy user

Yes! I use Sygate as well -- we are of the same mind

EDIT: By the way... Stephonovich! What is Team Duncan-itis? Very curious

 

[Stephonovich]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bLue_oNioN Last year, over a third of all businesses worldwide were hit hard.

Aye, but this is for personal use. Most people don't have that many virii at once. Case in point: I went to a customer's house tonight to deliver their now-fixed computer, and while I was there, their internet bonked out. So I started troubleshooting that (cable modem needed resetting, for some reason), and got to cleaning up her computer, since it was running dog slow. WinME + 128MB RAM will do that to you. Anyway, after letting Spybot: Search & Destroy run for about 40 minutes, it found 158 different pieces of spyware. They had an AV system (Norton... I won't say it doesn't work, but there's cheaper alternatives that I prefer) that had kept away all virii, however, even with having grandchildren that put crap on it. They've now got a 100% free copy of an anti-spyware tool, too, so hopefully it'll run better. I introduced them to Firefox, as well, and it's wonderful pop-up blocking. I find that cinches it for most people. "This can stop pop-ups?! Let me have it!"

Quote:

I use Symantec Antivirus Corporate Edition so NAV's interface is a thing of the past for me. I used NAV three years in a row though, and found no such slow-downs. Scantimes were fast as well. In fact, Norton is known to have a good compromise between a proper balance of speed and thoroughness.

Corporate Edition? Ah. Yeah, those are usually nicer. WinXP Corporate comes to mind... no activation... not that I'd know, of course. But I digress. Norton ran slow for me, that's all I know. AVG blew it away. This was on a PIII 550 w/ 128MB RAM (running a very clean installation of Win98SE, though, so it was adequate), and a Celeron 333 w/ 128MB RAM, also running 98SE. Perhaps '04 is faster, though, I don't know. I was using '00.

Quote:

Boot sector virii are common enough and can easily royally bork your system. As for the virii you speak of, those that delete files, corrupt Windows installations, and spread/bog down the internet... well, all I can say is, those are inconveniences I would rather not deal with.

I have yet to get a boot sector virus. As for the others, the only one that really gave me any trouble was a still unknown virus that was a TSR, and I had to finally remove the CMOS battery to remove. Windows wouldn't boot until I did that. And no, it wasn't a messed up BIOS setting. The others AVG all caught and quarantined, and easily removed.

Quote:

As I stated in the very beginning, there may be a chance I'm paying for something unnecessary, but I'm not willing to take the risk. More power to you if you are.

Not quite. I just place more trust in a free product than you do. That's fine with me. Then, I'm a firm believer in open source (I know, AVG isn't open source) and the power of a group of dedicated people. More power to you as well, though. Whatever works for you.

Quote:

By the way... Stephonovich! What is Team Duncan-itis? Very curious

Ah, yes... back when I was furiously collecting PCDPs (I've slowed down now, but I'm still going to get a D-555 one day, I swear) I created the team, since this was when Duncan was still heavily into them and had his massive review in the works. It was in his honor.

 

[bLue_oNioN]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephonovich Aye, but this is for personal use. Most people don't have that many virii at once.

I'm afraid I don't see your line of reasoning. The corporate statistics were provided to demonstrate the dramatic rise in viral threats that has taken place over the years. For example, several years ago, nobody would have expected that an unprotected computer sitting on the internet for 10 - 15 minutes is all it takes to become infected, and yet that is the world we live in now. Virii obviously do not discriminate between a corporate PC and a home PC. In other words, the "personal use" label does not make the growing threat any less real.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephonovich Case in point: I went to a customer's house tonight to deliver their now-fixed computer, and while I was there, their internet bonked out. So I started troubleshooting that (cable modem needed resetting, for some reason), and got to cleaning up her computer, since it was running dog slow. WinME + 128MB RAM will do that to you. Anyway, after letting Spybot: Search & Destroy run for about 40 minutes, it found 158 different pieces of spyware. They had an AV system (Norton... I won't say it doesn't work, but there's cheaper alternatives that I prefer) that had kept away all virii, however, even with having grandchildren that put crap on it. They've now got a 100% free copy of an anti-spyware tool, too, so hopefully it'll run better. I introduced them to Firefox, as well, and it's wonderful pop-up blocking. I find that cinches it for most people. "This can stop pop-ups?! Let me have it!"

I'm glad they were okay in the end.

I am, however, not sure what purpose your case in point is supposed to serve, so if you'd like to continue, please elaborate.

People do love Firefox though, don't they

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephonovich Corporate Edition? Ah. Yeah, those are usually nicer. WinXP Corporate comes to mind... no activation... not that I'd know, of course. But I digress. Norton ran slow for me, that's all I know. AVG blew it away. This was on a PIII 550 w/ 128MB RAM (running a very clean installation of Win98SE, though, so it was adequate), and a Celeron 333 w/ 128MB RAM, also running 98SE. Perhaps '04 is faster, though, I don't know. I was using '00.

Antivirus products have matured quite a bit in the past few years, as demand for key features has ramped up with the afforementioned rise of threats. I believe it is an unfair comparison to draw contrasts between an almost-five-year-old product (NAV2000) and one that is offered now.

I also believe it is unfair to label a product overly resource-intensive when it is obvious that your test setup is severely outdated. Modern setups will easily handle Norton at no apparent cost to performance.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephonovich I have yet to get a boot sector virus.

I have. The headache-filled weeks (I was just getting into computers at the time) taught me real quick to always be on guard, which is why I feel so strongly about this -- people always think things won't happen to them, but when they do, it's pure hell for sure. Better safe than sorry IMHO.

Let's be realistic here: what's 10 dollars to your wallet? I'm a college student, I have a high tuition to take care of, and I still think 10 dollars a year in exchange for a suitable level of protection for the home user is worth it. The amount people spend here on audio equipment can reach ridiculously high amounts. It is not as if the purchase of antivirus is anywhere like purchasing a PPA, or even a headphone.

Regarding your original point, as I am sure you are aware, your example is not valid because viral infections are a probability game. It is false logic to assume (and I am not saying you are in fact assuming, I would just like to make this clear) that because you have not yet caught one, others running the same setup will not.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephonovich Not quite. I just place more trust in a free product than you do. That's fine with me. Then, I'm a firm believer in open source (I know, AVG isn't open source) and the power of a group of dedicated people.

What's interesting is, all responses I have received thus far (and this is not the first time I have discussed this with others, hence my referral to "all responses") never address the data I provide. I do not make claims based on perception or personal experience -- I back up what I say with numbers because number don't lie. I would be very interested to hear what you have to say regarding the poor performance AVG has to offer when it comes to real-world wild-virus testing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephonovich Ah, yes... back when I was furiously collecting PCDPs (I've slowed down now, but I'm still going to get a D-555 one day, I swear) I created the team, since this was when Duncan was still heavily into them and had his massive review in the works. It was in his honor.

I was wondering about that! I lurked around quite a bit before I decided to register and always saw Duncan's word as the final word. Don't really see him post too much now though

 

[Stephonovich]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bLue_oNioN I'm afraid I don't see your line of reasoning. The corporate statistics were provided to demonstrate the dramatic rise in viral threats that has taken place over the years.

I thought your statistics were showing corporate downtime due to virus infection. But yes, I agree with the insane proliferation of them. When I was visiting UNL previously this year for a 4-H Technology Team Meeting, we had a BYOC event, and literally seconds after plugging into their network, I had Sasser. And yes, AVG caught and dealt with it. Yeah, I know, it was a major virus, it doesn't work so well with little-known ones...

Quote:

I am, however, not sure what purpose your case in point is supposed to serve, so if you'd like to continue, please elaborate.

Erm, I rather ranted OT there. My point was that even though these people were completely computer illiterate, they had no virii. Most people I know, no matter how technically inept, know if their computer is acting funny, they probably have a virus, and to call a techie. They might not know jack about spyware, but virii have become fairly common to even them now. Some of them have even learned not to open unknown attachments now. I was just trying to point out that few people are likely to have a system overrun with virii.

Quote:

Antivirus products have matured quite a bit in the past few years, as demand for key features has ramped up with the afforementioned rise of threats. I believe it is an unfair comparison to draw contrasts between an almost-five-year-old product (NAV2000) and one that is offered now. I also believe it is unfair to label a product overly resource-intensive when it is obvious that your test setup is severely outdated. Modern setups will easily handle Norton at no apparent cost to performance.

Yes, it is rather unfair, that's why I pointed the fact out. Although, in my defense, I've found newer products to have more bloat than older ones. Just look at Windows. 95 ran on a 386. 98 required a 486, IIRC. 2K wanted at least a PII 233, although you could get buy with a 166. XP, you better have a PIII 500 at least.

As for the test bed being 'severely outdated', um, no. As of 2000, a PIII 550 wasn't all that bad. They had just broken 1GHz in 2000, after all, and that was Q3 or 4, I think. I was running this in 2000, understand. It was all up to date then.

Quote:

Let's be realistic here: what's 10 dollars to your wallet? I'm a college student, I have a high tuition to take care of, and I still think 10 dollars a year in exchange for a suitable level of protection for the home user is worth it. The amount people spend here on audio equipment can reach ridiculously high amounts. It is not as if the purchase of antivirus is anywhere like purchasing a PPA, or even a headphone. Regarding your original point, as I am sure you are aware, your example is not valid because viral infections are a probability game. It is false logic to assume (and I am not saying you are in fact assuming, I would just like to make this clear) that because you have not yet caught one, others running the same setup will not.

It's not the money, it's the fact that, to me, there's a free product available that performs just as well. As I said, I've never had a problem with AVG. Maybe I'm just lucky, I dunno. But to me, it works as well or better than Norton, and is free.

And yes, I fully realize virii are a big crap shoot. I was just saying I hadn't gotten a boot sector one yet.

Quote:

What's interesting is, all responses I have received thus far (and this is not the first time I have discussed this with others, hence my referral to "all responses") never address the data I provide. I do not make claims based on perception or personal experience -- I back up what I say with numbers because number don't lie. I would be very interested to hear what you have to say regarding the poor performance AVG has to offer when it comes to real-world wild-virus testing.

I'm not debating those stats. I'm just saying that personally, I've never had a complaint about AVG, and I've had several about Norton and McAfee. Should I give 20004 a try? Perhaps, but I've become rather cynical about major products like that. They remind me too much of M$. Too little too late. I may try Kaspersky, though, as I really did find it a quality product when I last used it. Testing AV is always fun; get a system you don't care about, infect the heck out of it, then see how the AV software performs.

 

[bLue_oNioN]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephonovich I thought your statistics were showing corporate downtime due to virus infection. But yes, I agree with the insane proliferation of them. When I was visiting UNL previously this year for a 4-H Technology Team Meeting, we had a BYOC event, and literally seconds after plugging into their network, I had Sasser. And yes, AVG caught and dealt with it. Yeah, I know, it was a major virus, it doesn't work so well with little-known ones...

We are in perfect agreement here then =)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephonovich Erm, I rather ranted OT there. My point was that even though these people were completely computer illiterate, they had no virii. Most people I know, no matter how technically inept, know if their computer is acting funny, they probably have a virus, and to call a techie. They might not know jack about spyware, but virii have become fairly common to even them now. Some of them have even learned not to open unknown attachments now. I was just trying to point out that few people are likely to have a system overrun with virii.

You don't need to have a system overrun with virri. One is all it takes. That is why I have been trying to communicate the whole time a simple concept: viral threats are on the rise and as a result, it's easier to get infected now than ever before since there are more and more opportunities to get hit. Ensuring that the antivirus you run has high detection rates is a step that cannot be skipped. Hence my previous comments regarding AVG, backed by data from three independent sources.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephonovich Yes, it is rather unfair, that's why I pointed the fact out. Although, in my defense, I've found newer products to have more bloat than older ones. Just look at Windows. 95 ran on a 386. 98 required a 486, IIRC. 2K wanted at least a PII 233, although you could get buy with a 166. XP, you better have a PIII 500 at least. As for the test bed being 'severely outdated', um, no. As of 2000, a PIII 550 wasn't all that bad. They had just broken 1GHz in 2000, after all, and that was Q3 or 4, I think. I was running this in 2000, understand. It was all up to date then.

I believe you misunderstood me.

My first statement was this:
Antivirus products have matured quite a bit in the past few years, as demand for key features has ramped up with the afforementioned rise of threats. I believe it is an unfair comparison to draw contrasts between an almost-five-year-old product (NAV2000) and one that is offered now.

Now, assuming that you tested using a version of AVG from all the way back in 1998, I would have to point you to this link from Virus Bulletin and say that AVG never passed a single meaningful test until June of 2003. In other words, AVG failed all tests dating back to 1998. Seeing that Norton was able to pass its share of tests, I would conclude that your entire test was moot: of course Norton was slower, it was actually doing its job, while AVG was not!

Now, assuming the other alternative, that you tested this fairly recently and used a current copy of AVG I would say my point still stands. You cannot compare a five-year-old piece of software that has since been updated meticulously with a piece of software that is current. It's like saying my Toyota runs faster than your vintage Porsche -- knowing the speed at which advancements are made in the technological world, a conclusion simply cannot be drawn. To do so would be absurd.

Onward to the next part of what I said.

My statement was:
"I also believe it is unfair to label a product overly resource-intensive when it is obvious that your test setup is severely outdated. Modern setups will easily handle Norton at no apparent cost to performance."

In other words, your test bed is severely outdated in the sense that the performance hit you experienced back then has no real meaning today. We've come a long way since your P3 500. My computer can handle any version of Norton you throw at it and perform just as fast as it would without. As processors become faster and faster, this will only become more true.

Makes sense?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephonovich It's not the money, it's the fact that, to me, there's a free product available that performs just as well. As I said, I've never had a problem with AVG. Maybe I'm just lucky, I dunno. But to me, it works as well or better than Norton, and is free.

Had you come across initially as you are now, I would've had no problem with that. But the tone with which you supported AVG strongly implied that AVG was the most others would need. I believed otherwise, so I wanted to make it very clear that based on actual data, the amount of confidence people place in AVG should be reconsidered.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephonovich I'm not debating those stats. I'm just saying that personally, I've never had a complaint about AVG, and I've had several about Norton and McAfee. Should I give 20004 a try? Perhaps, but I've become rather cynical about major products like that. They remind me too much of M$. Too little too late. I may try Kaspersky, though, as I really did find it a quality product when I last used it. Testing AV is always fun; get a system you don't care about, infect the heck out of it, then see how the AV software performs.

As stated before, it would have been very easy for someone new to the scene to read your posts, believe that AVG is the optimal answer, and use it without the slightest idea that there is indeed no free lunch, even in the digital world. I felt it was important to present the facts as they are.

I don't see what all this about Microsoft has to do with Symantec's offering. For 10 dollars, you get a product that performs on average 20 - 30% better than AVG. In my case, I received the latest Corporate Edition free from Washington University in St. Louis while doing research there.

In any case, I am very thankful that you're extremely fun to talk to -- too many people these days start resorting to personal attacks and blow up after a few exchanges. Sad =/

 

[pedxing]

People have their preconceived notions againstthe bigger av software vendors and avoid Macafee or Norton. I have many friends who hate Norton because it makes their system unstable. I have other friends who hate Macafee and Norton because of the bloat. However, if people feel fine using Norton or macafee, and I know a lot of people do, so much the better for them. I asked some IT people at work about Kapersky and they told me its just popular with certain computer enthusiasts, not necessarily better than most other av software products. With all of these conlicting opinions, I came to the conclusion that most of the popular av software products have their devoted followers.

I don't know how these tests are actually done, but some people have pointed out at certain security forums that some of these test use really old DOS viruses that may never appear in the wild again. Who really cares if a product misses that virus and it cannot affect Windows XP? Some people argued that we should be worried about recent and future viruses, worms, and trojans instead of dwelling on the ones created in the past 10 years ago.

There is a large psychological part about security. If scoring 99% on the test keeps you at peace, just go buy that product. I am leaning towards kapersky right now, even with the expense of performance, because I don't feel comfortable with Nod32. I like the speed of Nod32, but I just don't feel secure with it. Of course, if I was really paranoid, I go and use several anti-virus programs at once.

 

[bLue_oNioN]

pedxing - Round One is dated June 2004, Round Two is dated September, 2004 and Round Three used a list dated August, 2004. The files used were from recently infected files that had been collected over time. Therefore, it is safe to say that the margin between AVG and antivirus programs such as Norton was not attributed to archaic virii that have little chance of showing up.

I think you are very correct in saying that security has a very large psychological factor. Peace of mind is more important to some than to others. The test results, however, speak for themselves.

Kaspersky is supposed to do quite well when it comes to detection, I would not hesitate to switch had I not been provided SAV CE 9 free of charge.

Like you, I was ready to jump on the NOD32 bandwagon, but decided against it after some thought, and don't plan to go back on my decision anytime soon. They've got a lot more to prove before I go with them, IMHO.

 

[roadtonowhere08]

I do not have ANY anti-virus program at all, and I've only got one virus... EVER. It was that damn Sasser virus. I guess not getting much e-mail helps

Knock on wood...

 

[eyeteeth]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephonovich Who gets bombarded with that many virii, though? Half of a decent anti-virus suite is educating the user. Don't download stuff of dubious origin (or open email attachments) and there's half your battle.

True. My e-mail is program is set to not accept any attachments at all.
And come to think about it, it was probably a virus that forced me to reinstall my OS. And Norton was functioning at the time of the suspected infection!

 

[bLue_oNioN]

Quote:

Originally Posted by eyeteeth True. My e-mail is program is set to not accept any attachments at all. And come to think about it, it was probably a virus that forced me to reinstall my OS. And Norton was functioning at the time of the suspected infection!

As clearly shown from the test results, Norton does not give you 100% assurance -- it is a 20-30% step up from AVG, but there is no reason to see it as unfallible.

 

[Stephonovich]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bLue_oNioN I believe you misunderstood me.

Clearly. I can see your point, now.

Quote:

Now, assuming that you tested using a version of AVG from all the way back in 1998, I would have to point you to this link from Virus Bulletin and say that AVG never passed a single meaningful test until June of 2003. In other words, AVG failed all tests dating back to 1998.

Au contraire. It passed a DOS test in 2000

Say what you like, I still say DOS is still the best OS Redmond's come up with yet. On a more recent note, though, I see AVG is now passing all tests with flying colors.

Quote:

My computer can handle any version of Norton you throw at it and perform just as fast as it would without. As processors become faster and faster, this will only become more true. Makes sense?

Yes, I see your point. I still don't let virus scans run while I'm gaming, but multi-tasking has definitely gotten better with faster processors.

Quote:

I don't see what all this about Microsoft has to do with Symantec's offering.

I was comparing Symantec to Microsoft in that they've only recently (IMO) been producing halfway decent products. M$ had DOS down pat, albeit ripping it off, then they released a series of bad products until 98SE, and then ruined any hope they had with ME. 2K was good, and XP isn't so bad. As I've mentioned, I had nothing but bad luck with Norton. It's very likely the exception to the rule, judging by what you said, but it was enough to turn me off from their products.

What may be worth mentioning is that Symantec has no Linux offerings. AVG does, and has had them for quite some time. Mind, there's hardly any Linux virii in the wild anymore, but they do exist. I did, however, see this link, which claims they'll be releasing one sometime soon.

Quote:

In any case, I am very thankful that you're extremely fun to talk to -- too many people these days start resorting to personal attacks and blow up after a few exchanges. Sad =/

I've found yelling achieves nothing. Well, not online, anyway. It can scare people and drive them away in the real world, but not much else.

Anyway, all this talk has definitely made me think. I'm going to give Kaspersky a try again. I still dunno if I'll try Norton (although I do have a Corporate '03 Internet Security CD sitting around here somewheres... dad used to work for Gateway, and got all sorts of freebies), but we'll see.

 

[bLue_oNioN]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephonovich Au contraire. It passed a DOS test in 2000 Say what you like, I still say DOS is still the best OS Redmond's come up with yet. On a more recent note, though, I see AVG is now passing all tests with flying colors.

lol, yes DOS was nice at the time, but you didn't test under it, which as I made clear earlier, renders your test results invalid

As for recent tests, that is the whole point I am trying to make -- almost every antivirus passes ICSA/Virus Bulletin tests now. The real challenge comes in the tests I highlighted, of which AVG makes a pretty darn poor showing.

It is, however, obvious that because general experiences are based on probability, there will be those such as yourself who have varying degrees of success, even though it has been established that AVG's detection rates are not up to par when placed beside its peers. Again, taking the general crowd as a whole, people should have more problems using AVG than they would with a product ranked higher up the ladder (e.g. Kaspersky, Norton, etc.)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephonovich I was comparing Symantec to Microsoft in that they've only recently (IMO) been producing halfway decent products. M$ had DOS down pat, albeit ripping it off, then they released a series of bad products until 98SE, and then ruined any hope they had with ME. 2K was good, and XP isn't so bad. As I've mentioned, I had nothing but bad luck with Norton. It's very likely the exception to the rule, judging by what you said, but it was enough to turn me off from their products.

I suspect this may spark another round of exchanges, but I am just curious: what exactly do you not like about XP?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephonovich What may be worth mentioning is that Symantec has no Linux offerings. AVG does, and has had them for quite some time. Mind, there's hardly any Linux virii in the wild anymore, but they do exist. I did, however, see this link, which claims they'll be releasing one sometime soon.

I don't use Linux, so to me, it's all the better that Symantec is concentrating it's R&D division entirely on the platform that I am using.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephonovich I've found yelling achieves nothing. Well, not online, anyway. It can scare people and drive them away in the real world, but not much else.

omg I swear, if only everyone had enough sense like you. Flame wars are just so sad to see...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephonovich Anyway, all this talk has definitely made me think. I'm going to give Kaspersky a try again. I still dunno if I'll try Norton (although I do have a Corporate '03 Internet Security CD sitting around here somewheres... dad used to work for Gateway, and got all sorts of freebies), but we'll see.

I'm glad this gave you a slightly different perspective! If you do try Kaspersky, let me know what you think about it -- I'm wondering if I should take the plunge as well