Re: Kaspersky Anti-virus
- From: "Pete Stavrakoglou" <ntotrr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2009 12:28:54 -0500
"Ken Blake, MVP" <kblake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:fvc2l41oqrrqv1h394ce4ajko01s4ncu0i@xxxxxxxxxx
On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 07:37:06 -0800, Tonyo UK
<TonyoUK@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
You get what you pay for.
I don't agree at all. If that were literally true, than Norton
anti-virus, which you have to pay for, would be better than Avast and
Avira, both of which are free.
But Norton, in my view, is the worst of the anti-virus programs, and
Avast and Avira and among the best one ones available.
--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience
Please Reply to the Newsgroup
What do you know about Norton 2009? I feel the same way about Norton AV,
you couldn't pay me to use it. However, Norton 2009 is re-written from the
bottom up. I tried it on one PC and found that there was no performance hit
and the scans are very fast. Even the install routine is fast, Symantec
wrote their own. I'm pleaseantly surprised by how good it works and how
non-obtrusive it is.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Kaspersky Anti-virus
- From: Al Kaufmann
- Re: Kaspersky Anti-virus
- From: Ken Blake, MVP
- Re: Kaspersky Anti-virus
- From: Richie Hardwick
- Re: Kaspersky Anti-virus
- Prev by Date: Re: Sewage treatment for bragel abrel oup
- Next by Date: Re: Sewage treatment for bragel abrel oup
- Previous by thread: Re: Kaspersky Anti-virus
- Next by thread: Re: Kaspersky Anti-virus
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|