Re: WIndows Registry and NIS 2004
From: Hilary Karp (hilarykarp_at_comcast.nospam.net)
Date: 07/18/04
- Next message: Hilary Karp: "Re: Windows restore"
- Previous message: Hilary Karp: "Re: CONNECTION ICON DISAPPEARING (ATTEMPT 3)"
- In reply to: Ken Gardner: "Re: WIndows Registry and NIS 2004"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Sat, 17 Jul 2004 21:47:39 -0700
I think the objective test is how many people in here use AVG, for
example, and alot do. Never have heard anything about either that says
they don't work well.
Ken Gardner wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 19:15:57 -0500, CS wrote:
>
>
>>Both of the above mentioned free AV packages are very good as are the
>>free firewalls. Payware does not necessarily mean it's better. In
>>any event, you are free to pay as much as you like for the protection
>>you feel you're getting.
>
>
>>However, if you read this forum and many others you will see that the
>>free AV applications I suggested are well accepted and offer as good
>>as or better protection than some which are not free.
>
>
> I hear you. In fact, I use both Ad-Aware and Spybot, both of which
> are free. So I am not necessarily disagreeing with you, just
> expressing a "default" prejudice I have to the effect that other
> things being equal, you should assume that you are getting what you
> pay for.
>
> Is there any objective way to find out (e.g. comparative testing using
> objective standards) if the free AV applications are at least as good
> and up to date as, say, Norton or Trend-Micro?
>
> Ken
- Next message: Hilary Karp: "Re: Windows restore"
- Previous message: Hilary Karp: "Re: CONNECTION ICON DISAPPEARING (ATTEMPT 3)"
- In reply to: Ken Gardner: "Re: WIndows Registry and NIS 2004"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
