[tortie]

I've liked Trend's Pc-cillin anti-virus program for quite a time now. It has a clean interface and the CPU load is very small. New virus updates are downloadable everyday and you can send them any unknown virus that finds its way to your computer for evaluation. Im surprised it didn't do quite as well as Norton and McAffee in the tests posted in this thread.

 

[Stephonovich]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bLue_oNioN 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.)

Indeed. Just as there's people who installed SP2 without a hitch, there's also people who had numerous problems with it. And actually, I'd agree that the general user bunch should use Norton or the like, if only for the UI. AVG is, at best, mildly difficult to use. I have no problem with it, but then, I'm an experienced computer user and can figure out a new program in a minute or so.

Quote:

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

I don't like it's default theme... Heh. On a more serious note, I don't like how hoggy it is. I know, a fairly modern computer has no problem with it, but the problem is that M$ was recommending everyone with a computer from the past 5 years should upgrade, and people did. You've got people with a 333MHz Celeron and 128MB RAM using XP, and it's horrible. The disk never stops thrashing due to having to swap constantly, it's slow, unresponsive... Mind you, I use XP on all of my machines. Properly configured (read: all eye candy turned off) it's a pretty decent OS. Pretty much like 2K, except dumbed down a bit. There's tweaks you can do to make it more like 2K (which I've done), and it gives you a tad more control. That's the other reason I dislike it. The 9x kernel gave you insane amounts of control, if you knew where to go. Between .ini files and the registry, you could make that baby sing opera if you wanted to. It's only downfall was being rather unstable. Bottom line, XP's good if you know what you're doing and have a fairly recent computer. Otherwise, stick with 98SE. Or, of course, go with Linux... runs on anything, even a 286.

Quote:

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.

I can see your point, but I still think a company should (and they seem to be doing so, judging by the article I linked) look into what people are using and go after the minorities as well. Imagine if all software companies just focused on the #1 OS platform, which would be Windows. Mac users (a fairly significant chunk of the alternatives) would be SOL. Linux users would still be fine, as 90% or better of our software isn't made by companies anyway. Heck, the kernel is the result of countless users worldwide.

Quote:

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

Well, I downloaded it last night, but I was too tired to do anything with it. I'm hoping to catch a movie tonight, but I'll probably get around to it tomorrow. I'll report my findings.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tortie I've liked Trend's Pc-cillin anti-virus program for quite a time now. It has a clean interface and the CPU load is very small.

I guess I always thought of Pc-cillin as kind of a hack job; something that wouldn't measure up to the big boys. After reading a few reviews, though, I guess it was misplaced. Seems to be right on par with the other smaller ones; Panda, AVG, et. al.

 

[bLue_oNioN]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephonovich Indeed. Just as there's people who installed SP2 without a hitch, there's also people who had numerous problems with it. And actually, I'd agree that the general user bunch should use Norton or the like, if only for the UI. AVG is, at best, mildly difficult to use. I have no problem with it, but then, I'm an experienced computer user and can figure out a new program in a minute or so.

Case closed!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephonovich I don't like it's default theme... Heh. On a more serious note, I don't like how hoggy it is. I know, a fairly modern computer has no problem with it, but the problem is that M$ was recommending everyone with a computer from the past 5 years should upgrade, and people did. You've got people with a 333MHz Celeron and 128MB RAM using XP, and it's horrible. The disk never stops thrashing due to having to swap constantly, it's slow, unresponsive... Mind you, I use XP on all of my machines. Properly configured (read: all eye candy turned off) it's a pretty decent OS. Pretty much like 2K, except dumbed down a bit. There's tweaks you can do to make it more like 2K (which I've done), and it gives you a tad more control. That's the other reason I dislike it. The 9x kernel gave you insane amounts of control, if you knew where to go. Between .ini files and the registry, you could make that baby sing opera if you wanted to. It's only downfall was being rather unstable. Bottom line, XP's good if you know what you're doing and have a fairly recent computer. Otherwise, stick with 98SE. Or, of course, go with Linux... runs on anything, even a 286.

Yes, I do agree there, XP raised the bar on minimum requirements. It's to be expected, really, but it would be nice if Microsoft code ran a little bit leaner than it does now. Too many running processes by default supporting "features" packed in there that I don't intend on using. 'services.msc' helps a lot in that regard =)

I wonder if you know anything about Longhorn? I haven't been keeping up in that department very much. Last thing I remember, they threw out WinFS and Avalon along with things I have no concern about (e.g. MBF, etc) to make the 2006/2007 deadline.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephonovich I can see your point, but I still think a company should (and they seem to be doing so, judging by the article I linked) look into what people are using and go after the minorities as well. Imagine if all software companies just focused on the #1 OS platform, which would be Windows. Mac users (a fairly significant chunk of the alternatives) would be SOL. Linux users would still be fine, as 90% or better of our software isn't made by companies anyway. Heck, the kernel is the result of countless users worldwide.

I can certainly relate to the Mac being stranded part. My school bought an entire room's worth of them for my team and I wound up aggravated because the Norton for Mac is one shoddy excuse of a product. On the other hand, the Adobe products we were using came out rather nicely -- I still prefer the interface of Adobe on Macs over Adobe on Windows, actually.

Have fun at the movies!

 

[Mr.PD]

I tried out Kaspersky today. It seemed okay. It found the stuff that Norton quarantined. Which I didn't realize were quarantined, I thought I had Norton set up to delete those things.

Next up is that free program.

 

[rickcr42]

the quarantine feature is actually pretty cool in that you can restore something norton beleves to be a trojan or virus but leaves it up to the user to determine what to do with the file isolated-usually dumpster bound but ya never know

 

[Stephonovich]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bLue_oNioN Yes, I do agree there, XP raised the bar on minimum requirements. It's to be expected, really, but it would be nice if Microsoft code ran a little bit leaner than it does now. Too many running processes by default supporting "features" packed in there that I don't intend on using. 'services.msc' helps a lot in that regard =)

I disagree with you on that it's 'to be expected'. I cite Linux as an example. The 2.6 (newest) kernel can run on pretty much anything the 2.4, 2.2, and so on can. And as for GUIs, if you want to mimic Windows as much as possible, KDE and Gnome are the two big ones. Rather slow to load (although I heard the latest versions of both have massively sped up), memory hogs, but they act a lot like Windows. Anyway, I've ran both on a PII 266 without a problem. Ran as fast if not faster than when I had 98SE on it. I don't really pay attention much anymore, as I use fluxbox or xfce most of the time now. Extremely lightweight window managers that use next to nothing in terms of memory or CPU, yet are insanely customizable. Or for the ultimate in minimalism, blackbox... Just a black screen, right-click for menus. For if you absolutely have to have X (GUI, essentially) and you have an ancient machine.

But yes, XP can be pared down quite a bit. I've saved about 30MB of RAM by cutting out stuff I don't need, plus I plugged a few fairly major security holes (IMO) that are left wide open; Remote Services being a big one. I have no need for this, nor do most other people; so why is it enabled by default? I was kinda pissed when v5 of Windows Update required me to enable a couple things, though. Background Intelligent Transfer Service, for one, something that I don't use, since I disable automatic updates. Also some branch of Cryptographic Services that I don't need. But I digress...

Quote:

I wonder if you know anything about Longhorn? I haven't been keeping up in that department very much. Last thing I remember, they threw out WinFS and Avalon along with things I have no concern about (e.g. MBF, etc) to make the 2006/2007 deadline.

I stopped looking into Longhorn about the time when they announced it would require a quad-core CPU to operate. As for WinFS, I'm still wary about it. Linux support for that is going to take some time, having to reverse engineer it. Rather like NTFS support. They've only recently stablized write support for NTFS partitions. Before it was a crapshoot; sometimes it destroyed your data or partition. There is, of course, the ability to grab Window's own NTFS driver and just use that, but the legality of that is still somewhat sketchy. I think if you own a legit copy of Windows and it's on the same drive it's allowed, since you aren't using that copy of Windows if you're in Linux, obviously.

Quote:

On the other hand, the Adobe products we were using came out rather nicely -- I still prefer the interface of Adobe on Macs over Adobe on Windows, actually.

That's likely because Adobe products were Mac-only originally. I believe Photoshop 5 was the first version that included PC support. As such, they run extremely well on Macs. Which is also another reason why the benchmarks using Photoshop or Premiere between Macs and PCs are rather stilted. I was amazed when the FX-51 managed to beat a Mac in both those. Actually, beat isn't the right word. Blew out of the water, more like it. Hehe...

Quote:

Have fun at the movies!

Aye, I did. Sky Captain is an awesome movie. But then, I'm a huge fan of the moody lighting and 30s era type stuff. Genius of a movie, anyway.

As for Kaspersky, I'm currently updating the virus defs. Which is taking quite a long time over dial-up... The interface isn't any easier than AVG, I can tell you that. And I haven't enabled an Expert mode or anything like that. It's split into multiple 'modules', such as Updater, Control Centre (which one would think allows you to do everything, but no...), Scanner, Quarantine, and the like. I figured it out, but again, an average user would probably struggle.

 

[tortie]

Been using the free Antivir program for about 3 months now, and because of this thread, I decided to try Kaspersky and it hanged the hell out of my computer

I installed F-Secure 2005 instead. So far so good, I just scanned my computer & it did not find any viruses on both my hard drives. Guess the free Antivir program does an adequate job, but im going to try out F-secure until my trial period ends.

 

[lini]

I don't believe in single best solutions and thus use a combo of freebies: AVG, AntiVir, F-Prot & Stinger plus Spybot S&D.

Greetings from Hannover!

Manfred / lini

 

[Stephonovich]

Spybot, at least, is a spyware/adware only solution. It does NOT check for virii, AFAIK. Still very good, though. However, it's best paired with Ad-Aware, as they each tend to miss a few things. Run 'em both weekly and you ought to be fine.

 

[wallijonn]

Opting out of Spam may introduce a trojan: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6208701/


bLue_oNioN,

You would have loved WordPerfect for the Mac. It put MSWord to shame.

 

[bLue_oNioN]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephonovich I disagree with you on that it's 'to be expected'. I cite Linux as an example. The 2.6 (newest) kernel can run on pretty much anything the 2.4, 2.2, and so on can. And as for GUIs, if you want to mimic Windows as much as possible, KDE and Gnome are the two big ones. Rather slow to load (although I heard the latest versions of both have massively sped up), memory hogs, but they act a lot like Windows. Anyway, I've ran both on a PII 266 without a problem. Ran as fast if not faster than when I had 98SE on it. I don't really pay attention much anymore, as I use fluxbox or xfce most of the time now. Extremely lightweight window managers that use next to nothing in terms of memory or CPU, yet are insanely customizable. Or for the ultimate in minimalism, blackbox... Just a black screen, right-click for menus. For if you absolutely have to have X (GUI, essentially) and you have an ancient machine.

Allow me to clarify:

Windows currently commands over 90% of the consumer market, with Windows XP being it's primary offering to the consumer crowd.

That means a single flavor must cater to a vast mix of assorted uses and experience levels.

Microsoft thus must take into account the fact that the most recurring customer is our dear Joe and Josephine Schmoe. In doing so, it strives to package their operating system not just as a base upon which to operate from, but as a total solution. It has a browser. A firewall. An e-mail client. An instant messenger client. A media player. A photo editor. Even a video editor! Your personal preference as to the adequacy and quality of what is supplied may of course vary, but you cannot deny that for a large percent of the world, this is all they will ever need.

In striking contrast, Linux commands a laughable portion of the consumer market. Is it configurable? Yes, very much so. Would Joe Schmoe ever know where to begin? I highly doubt that. There are packages offered that come close in offering characteristics of Windows. But none of them are able to quite match Windows XP, like it or not, when it comes to:
- Compatability
- Shallow learning curve
- Breadth of supplied components, be it an e-mail client for Ms. Schmoe, or a policy editor for MCSE Joe
- Support

In conclusion, you cannot fault Microsoft for having Windows XP increasing in size as much as does with each iteration, and point to Linux for comparison. They are an entirely different breed catering to entirely different market personalities.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephonovich I stopped looking into Longhorn about the time when they announced it would require a quad-core CPU to operate. As for WinFS, I'm still wary about it. Linux support for that is going to take some time, having to reverse engineer it. Rather like NTFS support. They've only recently stablized write support for NTFS partitions. Before it was a crapshoot; sometimes it destroyed your data or partition. There is, of course, the ability to grab Window's own NTFS driver and just use that, but the legality of that is still somewhat sketchy. I think if you own a legit copy of Windows and it's on the same drive it's allowed, since you aren't using that copy of Windows if you're in Linux, obviously.

I don't think you will require a quad-core CPU to operate Longhorn -- for one, dual-core CPUs won't be widely available for quite a while, not to mention quad-core CPUs. What we have now will probably serve as a low-end system for Longhorn.

That said, I probably won't jump in maybe until 2008, when WinFS is released and support has stabilized. I'm hoping that Microsoft will get things right so that I can coincide my graduation with a hardware upgrade, but knowing how they've been doing recently... well, we'll see

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephonovich Aye, I did. Sky Captain is an awesome movie. But then, I'm a huge fan of the moody lighting and 30s era type stuff. Genius of a movie, anyway. As for Kaspersky, I'm currently updating the virus defs. Which is taking quite a long time over dial-up... The interface isn't any easier than AVG, I can tell you that. And I haven't enabled an Expert mode or anything like that. It's split into multiple 'modules', such as Updater, Control Centre (which one would think allows you to do everything, but no...), Scanner, Quarantine, and the like. I figured it out, but again, an average user would probably struggle.

I was wondering about that movie actually -- does the computer rendering lend a helping hand to the movie, or does it make everything seem much more cheesy, do you think? I'm not really sure if I should go watch it!

As for Kaspersky... keep us updated on your thoughts!

 

[bLue_oNioN]

Quote:

Originally Posted by tortie Been using the free Antivir program for about 3 months now, and because of this thread, I decided to try Kaspersky and it hanged the hell out of my computer I installed F-Secure 2005 instead. So far so good, I just scanned my computer & it did not find any viruses on both my hard drives. Guess the free Antivir program does an adequate job, but im going to try out F-secure until my trial period ends.

Kaspersky is known for being much more resource intensive compared to many of the other offerings on market -- hopefully as time goes on, it will become more and more useable with a wide range of systems.

Quote:

Originally Posted by wallijonn bLue_oNioN, You would have loved WordPerfect for the Mac. It put MSWord to shame.

You're right, I found Microsoft Word for Mac to be quite annoying -- it somehow just didn't function as smoothly as it did for the PC, even though appearance-wise, they both looked very similar.

 

[tortie]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephonovich Spybot, at least, is a spyware/adware only solution. It does NOT check for virii, AFAIK. Still very good, though. However, it's best paired with Ad-Aware, as they each tend to miss a few things. Run 'em both weekly and you ought to be fine.

I have the same combo & I did exactly the same thing.

Spy Sweeper also gets the job done, plus you can schedule its update downloads and system scans. You just set it and forget it

When time permits, I still run the Adaware/Spybot combo once in a while just to be sure.

 

[Mr.PD]

Quote:

Originally Posted by pank2002 I'd say go for AVG free edition which is quite fantastic. 'Specially since it's free for personal use. Check out their homepage: www.grisoft.com/us/us_dwnl_free.php I use a hardware firewall so I can't help you on that one.

Okay fellas. I went to that site. They want me to register. Fine, I was going to do that. Then, I see they want my name and address.

Did you guys put in your name and address? I have issues with that.

 

[bLue_oNioN]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr.PD Okay fellas. I went to that site. They want me to register. Fine, I was going to do that. Then, I see they want my name and address. Did you guys put in your name and address? I have issues with that.

Dude, this is like the perfect opportunity to play fantasy games. I am George Bush and I live in the White House in Washington D.C. at the moment. Would you like to be Dick Cheney?