Re: Norton 2005
From: David Candy (.)
Date: 01/09/05
- Next message: Al Smith: "Re: How tell bad vs. good "spyware""
- Previous message: Duane: "Lost shortcuts"
- In reply to: Ken Blake: "Re: Norton 2005"
- Next in thread: Charles C. Drew: "Re: Norton 2005"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2005 04:53:35 +1100
Norton's bad press is by people who machines were screwed by norton's products (not necessarily AV), not it's virus catching behaviour.
I only look up viruses at Norton's site as they seem to know the most about viruses. It's just their programs are crap programs - designed by a marketing team.
Q I have a old game and my computer is too fast to play it?
A Install a Norton product.
A long time ago I used NU Dos V 6.0 (they restarted their versions at 10 - 6 was the last where exe were standalone and didn't require overlays [like dll but for dos]) and McAfee (whatever version). Making programs do more to increase the feature count (of useless features) and looking prety were NU's priorities.
-- ---------------------------------------------------------- http://www.uscricket.com "Ken Blake" <kblake@this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote in message news:%23AJ7xCn9EHA.2196@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl... > In news:uPv83Bk9EHA.2196@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl, > Charles C. Drew <ccdrew11@hotmail.com> typed: > >> What you are saying is true, but I don't know. The odds do >> seem >> higher with AVG than Norton. >> >> If one is free and the other can better afford to stay current >> at all >> times because it gets paid, who do you think will have the most >> current and complete list of virus signatures? If one is used >> as a >> stop-gap because something is better than nothing and the other >> is >> use in corporation after corporation, which would you say is >> more >> reliable? > > > AVG is free for home use, but not for corporate use. Many > corporations use it. > > I'm not trying to tell you that AVG is better, worse, or the same > as Norton. I happen to use Norton myself, and despite the > opinions of many other MVPs (and other) who I greatly respect, I > continue to use it because it's always worked well for me. > > >> So far, I've never had an infection on a PC with Norton and a >> current >> virus signature list. > > > Nor have I. > > >> I have with AVG. > > > I've never used AVG, and can't comment on it. > > >> True, I've not used AVG very >> long nor do I have hundreds of PC to manage; but I've used >> Norton >> since about 1996 and the only time I've seen a machine infected >> with >> this software is when the virus list has been allowed to grow >> old. > > > The experience of a single user, whether you or me, or even both > of us taken together hardly counts. Statistics are meaningful > only when you look at large numbers of users. > > >> At the corporation I work which has over 48,000 employees and >> contractors working for it, the only viruses that ever get in >> are >> those that haven't been detected yet, and manage to pass >> through >> firewalls, intrusion detection, email filters, etc. These are >> only >> the most virulent viruses. >> >> I can't speak for every other virus scanner software and there >> are >> many, but can say I trust Norton far more than I do AVG. > > > Your choice, of course. There are many other AVG users who > disagree with you. In my opinion (admittedly hearsay--but from > those whose opinions I trust), AVG does at least as good a job as > Norton). If Symantec were to go out of business tomorrow, and I > had to find another anti-virus product, AVG is one of those I > would definitely consider. > > Again, however, I wasn't trying to tell you that AVG was better. > Despite my using and liking Norton, I was merely commenting that > your statement "I know of two people in my family alone who have > gotten viruses on their machines even with AVG running on their > machines" is not a good reason for the conclusion "Stick with > Norton." Statistics based on two examples are meaningless. > > -- > Ken Blake - Microsoft MVP Windows: Shell/User > Please reply to the newsgroup > > > >> "Ken Blake" <kblake@this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote in message >> news:OXwhCqC9EHA.2316@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl... >>| In news:ebw5QR78EHA.1524@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl, >>| Charles C. Drew <ccdrew11@hotmail.com> typed: >>| >>| > Unfortunately, I know of two people in my family alone who >>have >>| > gotten >>| > viruses on their machines even with AVG running on their >>| > machines. >>| > Stick with Norton. >>| >>| >>| It's important to realize that no anti-virus program can be >>| perfect. New virus definitions are added only after the new >>virus >>| is already out there, infecting people. AV programs can >>| substantially reduce the risk of getting infected, but never >>| eliminate it entirely, no matter how diligent you are at >>keeping >>| your virus definitions up to date. >>| >>| So regardless of what AV program you're talking about, there >>is >>| always somebody who has gotten viruses even with it running on >>| their machine. Your statement above is not a good reason to >>get >>| rid of AVG and run Norton instead. >>| >>| -- >>| Ken Blake - Microsoft MVP Windows: Shell/User >>| Please reply to the newsgroup > >
- Next message: Al Smith: "Re: How tell bad vs. good "spyware""
- Previous message: Duane: "Lost shortcuts"
- In reply to: Ken Blake: "Re: Norton 2005"
- Next in thread: Charles C. Drew: "Re: Norton 2005"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
