Re: Is AV software necessary?

Tech-Archive recommends: Repair Windows Errors & Optimize Windows Performance

From: Unknown (Unknown_at_Somewhere.Kom)
Date: 05/27/04 

Date: Thu, 27 May 2004 20:45:01 GMT

Holy smokes man can't you read? You're on this newsgroup so read.
"Lil' Dave" <spamyourself@virus.net> wrote in message
news:SKrtc.46$9h.4@lakeread02...
> Yep. There's many out there using such AV software. How you determined a
> large majority have problems, I don't know. How you determined these
> problems were not root user problems, I don't know. How you determined that
> one or two widely used AVs that may cause problems, is also true for all, I
> don't know.
>
> Saw this 70's model Ford pickup lose its tire and wheel going down the
> highway the other day. What can you conclude about the maker of the truck,
> trucks in general, tires, wheels, and highways using the above statement?
> Nevermind, I don't want to know.
>
> You sound like people I've heard that say its safe to drink and drive as
> long as you use the proper precautions.
> "Unknown" <Unknown@Somewhere.Kom> wrote in message
> news:rg4tc.3954$dx2.1952@newssvr16.news.prodigy.com...
> > You think they'll be back before long? I doubt it. They have the right
> idea
> > and procedures. I'll be willing to bet they'll have far fewer problems
> than
> > others using Norton or McAfee. I haven't ever had a virus, trojan.or worm
> and
> > I don't use any of the Norton or McAfee junk. You state Norton and McAfee
> run
> > great and have excellent records/histories. I think that is absolute
> hogwash.
> > Just read all the problems in these newsgroups caused by them. Users are
> even
> > warned to shut them down when updating or downloading. Post where you get
> > their excellent record data.
> > "MS" <nobody@spamcop.net> wrote in message
> > news:%234m3O9zQEHA.1340@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> > > It's true, you don 't "need" AV, however finding such an
> > > opinion and supposed experience from a supposed IT Pro is
> > > definitely "interesting". Either most of those peeps don't
> > > access the 'net and are very lucky, or they are real newbies
> > > with little real world experience.
> > > In general, problems resulting from AV (and other SW) are
> > > usually unnecessary and easily prevented. Norton and McAfee
> > > run great and have excellent records/histories.
> > >
> > > It will be futuristically interesting because it won't be
> > > that long before each of these folk are back, asking whether
> > > it's a trojan, worm, virus or adware problem, if they get
> > > enough experience, and whining about how awful Microsoft is
> > > because it created an OS that is so widely used that it's
> > > the target of any intelligent digital crook and mud slug.
> > > It's like blaming your car mfg for selling you a car that
> > > crooks like to steal, or leaving the car sitting at the
> > > curb, unlocked.
> > >
> > > See ya later fellas.
> > >
> > >
> > > "Unknown" <Unknown@Somewhere.Kom> wrote in message
> > > news:4Z2tc.14543$eH1.6564570@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com...
> > > > Finally someone with intelligence. I agree with you 100%.
> > > I have never had a
> > > > virus and have never used an AV program. Following these
> > > newsgroups, I see
> > > > thousands of problems caused by AV programs rather than
> > > preventing problems.
> > > > "john" <john@nospam.uk> wrote in message
> > > > news:pan.2004.05.26.10.34.35.418768@nospam.uk...
> > > > > For some time I've been questioning the use of AV
> > > software. I work in IT
> > > > > support and I really couldn't count the number of
> > > perfectly good Windows
> > > > > installations I've seen borked by Norton AV or any of
> > > the other bloated
> > > > > virus suites. The performance hit from installing these
> > > things with
> > > > > always-on protection is lamentable, both in terms of
> > > boot up time and the
> > > > > general responsiveness of the OS, and for what?
> > > > >
> > > > > Thesedays, viruses spread faster than the AV companies
> > > could hope to
> > > > > spread updated virus definitions. So for a critical
> > > length of time, AV
> > > > > software is completely powerless to protect your system
> > > when any
> > > > > particular worm or virus is at its peak on the Internet.
> > > > >
> > > > > AV has disappeared from my home machines and - guess
> > > what? - no viruses.
> > > > > This is because
> > > > >
> > > > > (1) I login to the systems as a limited user, not the
> > > administrator
> > > > > (2) I don't open email attachments
> > > > > (3) I don't download, install or run software from
> > > disreputable websites
> > > > > (4) I don't use IE or OE - these programs are virus
> > > distribution clients
> > > > > (5) I use an ADSL firewall router and not an ADSL modem
> > > > >
> > > > > My opinion is that AV software fixes nothing that common
> > > sense couldn't
> > > > > fix. Common sense has the additional advantage that it
> > > doesn't turn my
> > > > > 512MB P4 system into a 64MB P2 with an endlessly
> > > grinding hard disk.
> > > > >
> > > > > Nevertheless, at work, I still have to deal with the
> > > endless problems
> > > > > caused by AV software. I still have to knowingly cripple
> > > nice, clean
> > > > > installations by installing Norton bloatware. I still
> > > have to mess around
> > > > > ensuring that the AV definitions are up-to-date, even
> > > though essentially
> > > > > they will always be out of date when it really matters.
> > > > >
> > > > > Is AV software necessary? IMO, no. It should be avoided
> > > like the plague.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Is AV software necessary?
    ... You're on this newsgroup so read. ... What can you conclude about the maker of the truck, ... >> I don't use any of the Norton or McAfee junk. ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.security_admin)
  • Re: Total McAfee Removal Prior to Norton Installation
    ... Ken Blake - Microsoft MVP Windows: Shell/User ... Please reply to the newsgroup ... The insidious thing about Norton is that for many people it often ... Parts of McAfee are still booting up since I did the removal. ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics)
  • Re: Total McAfee Removal Prior to Norton Installation
    ... It took hours of uninstalls and regedits to remove all traces of it ... The insidious thing about Norton is that for many people it often works well ... Please reply to the newsgroup ... Parts of McAfee are still booting up since I did the removal. ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics)
  • Re: Thoughts on Norton Internet Security 2005?
    ... > I never allow anything from Symantec (Norton) or McAfee on any computer I ... > support. ... > Please respond in Newsgroup only. ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics)
  • Re: Which Anti Virus Works Best With Vista
    ... and there are more possible causes for an uninstaller might not work well or totally remove all components and/or registry entries which is when a removal utility could be helpful. ... I hated McAfee 2005 because the virus updates failed more than they succeeded. ... For that reason, two companies that I was contracting too asked for alternative and I suggested NAV, Symantec Corporate Security and TrendMicro. ... I have no comment on Norton or other programs and utilities, but I don't see any relationship between a removal utility and a "defective" product. ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.vista.general)