Re: Kaspersky Anti-virus
- From: "Apache -=CW=-" <Apache@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2009 10:43:05 -0500
I liked the Powerquest stuff until Symantec bought and destroyed them. Ghost
was ok, but Drive Image was superior. So was Partition Magic, Lost and Found
etc...
Norton's was good back in the Dos days.
"Hugh Jeego" <id@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:ujaC5kNbJHA.1676@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"Apache -=CW=-" <Apache@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:%23RxH6a1ZJHA.6036@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Kaspersky is the best although it can be cumbersome. But if you want to
protect your system totally it's the best choice.
It uses very little resources and keeps good track of what is going on.
Not 100% but very close.
Kaspersky IS the best. It actually picks up more nasty stuff than does any
other AV program and to be honest, have their finger on the pulse more
than anyone else.
Those freebie antivirus programs? I've tested a few of them and was not
impressed with them. Avast
gave me a lot of false warnings, and actually interfered with Internet
Explorer to the point where I couldn't
view certain web sites, such as MSN, and was a pain to remove and repair
the changes it made to my system .
Avast has never interfered once with any testing on machines.
CA Antivirus was also a freebie provided by Roadrunner, but it too
interfered with my mail program, and corrupted
it to the point where all of my saved email was lost. Thank goodness I
had backed it up so I only lost a few weeks worth of
email.
I have found, on many occasions, CA to be a real pain in the backside to
completely remove. You run the uninstall and it still leaves registry
items affecting the firewall in it. You think CA is gone but you get no
internet. It takes something like JV16 to have on hand and use to find
every last remnant of CA and manually pick them out of registry in order
to get a working machine on internet again. I wouldnt recommend nor use CA
for anything - not even toilet paper!
And finally Norton, I used to be a big fan of Symantec but not any more.
What's the point of having a malware program
that does the same if not more damage than the malware programs it is
supposedly designed to protect against.
I never used Nortons AV personally but on many tests have had it
consistently fail. Many years back, Nortons also bought a GREAT firewall
program call Atguard and made it their own firewall program and then
stuffed it up. The also bought a great backup program, Drive Image and
made it theirs and stuffed that up. I actually thought Ghost 9, being a
recent convert from Drive Image to Nortons, would be OK but it stuffed up
badly whereas the last official Drive Image release worked fine. I had
bought their disk editor program and used it. In every single case using
Nortons programs there was some form of stuffup so I gave up and removed
all Nortons products entirely and bought Acronis True Image and also theri
Disk Director. While Disk Director isnt fabulous (eg, if you have an image
backup from a drive that had disk errors on it and then install that image
to another drive, Disk Director keeps seeing disk errors where there are
NONE and wont, for example, expand the data to fill the disk if the disk
being written to is larger than where the data came from. You can get
around that by usign Vista's own disk tools but Disk Director should be
capable of working with it. Just doesnt.) it works better than their disk
editing software does.
It has been some time since I bothered using a Nortons product at all but
I am constantly fixing machines that have them on them and I can tell you,
they are not worth it - ANY Nortons product!
.
- References:
- Re: Kaspersky Anti-virus
- From: Hugh Jeego
- Re: Kaspersky Anti-virus
- Prev by Date: Re: mandatory roaming profiles
- Next by Date: Re: Where files and downloads are being saved
- Previous by thread: Re: Kaspersky Anti-virus
- Next by thread: Re: Kaspersky Anti-virus
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
