Re: Do you get what you pay for?
From: James (leushinonospam_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 10/10/04
- Next message: anomalous: "Re: Help!! Documents and settings folder problem! Help!!"
- Previous message: Bruce Chambers: "Re: Windows XP Installation"
- In reply to: Al Smith: "Re: Do you get what you pay for?"
- Next in thread: \: "Re: Do you get what you pay for?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2004 08:20:07 -0700
Al Smith wrote:
>> I used the CA free version of ZA (eTrust EZ Armor LE) for a while. Had a
>> little trouble. They even gave some support and helped me iron out the
>> difficulty. Giving service where the product is free is more than
>> unusual.
>> I like the product, and I figured they at least should get some value for
>> the service they provide me, and so I paid for the product. It isn't
>> as if
>> it would break you, you know, and how else can you ensure that good
>> products
>> on a try-it-for-free basis will be available?
>>
>> I'm all for shareware, too, of the type that lets you try it for a month,
>> and then register it--much preferable to the 'Surprize--you've been had!'
>> variety that retail boxware often is.
>
>
> I used Computer Associates' InnoculateIT for around two years, when it
> was being given away, and liked it very much. I even tried their EZ
> suite when it was made available for free for a year, through some deal
> with Microsoft (I guess Microsoft paid CA a sum to host the offer), and
> it was not too bad.
>
> I personally have a philosophical objection to having to buy virus
> updates by the year. I figure that when I pay for an antivirus, I should
> be given updates for as long as I choose to use the product.
>
> It's all part of the grand conspiracy of software companies to move
> their industry from a model where software is sold, to one where it is
> rented for limited periods of time. I'm not a fan of this model. That's
> the main reason I don't buy an antivirus.
>
> The last antivirus I bought was McAfee. It worked so badly, I had to
> remove it from my computer after a few weeks. Since then, McAfee has
> started selling updates by the year, just like Symantic. I would never
> buy either -- and in any case, neither works very well. By that I mean
> that both McAfee and Norton screw up and interfere with other programs,
> or even make the computer unusable. They are worse than the viruses they
> are supposed to remove.
I'm no fan of Symantec products but McAfee is a relative unknown to me.
I've found it the past that Norton digs its tentacles so deeply into
your registry that it is nigh to impossible to root it out without going
in there yourself. And it's well known that Norton products are resource
hogs.
I wasn't really asking so much about a specific AV or firewall program
so much as the concept of using the "free" version over the "paid-for"
version. I too agree that it seems as though we never really own the
product but in fact are renting it on an annual basis.
Thank you all for your contributions to the thread.
- Next message: anomalous: "Re: Help!! Documents and settings folder problem! Help!!"
- Previous message: Bruce Chambers: "Re: Windows XP Installation"
- In reply to: Al Smith: "Re: Do you get what you pay for?"
- Next in thread: \: "Re: Do you get what you pay for?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
