|
|
|
|
|
Posted by Buffalo on September 5, 2005, 10:44 am
If you were Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
Check here for some interesting results:
http://www.av-comparatives.org/
It seems that in the Feb and Aug 05 On-demand comparative, Norton Anti-Virus is
second in detection, just behind Kaspersky.
Those who use the others, and swear by them, should also check out that site.
How the heck did Norton get up so high?
One answer is their latest engine is better. AFAIK, Norton's 2002,3,and 4's
engines don't do as well.
Any other ideas?
|
|
Posted by * * Chas on September 5, 2005, 1:13 pm
If you were Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
| Check here for some interesting results:
| http://www.av-comparatives.org/
|
| It seems that in the Feb and Aug 05 On-demand comparative, Norton
Anti-Virus is
| second in detection, just behind Kaspersky.
| Those who use the others, and swear by them, should also check out
that site.
| How the heck did Norton get up so high?
| One answer is their latest engine is better. AFAIK, Norton's
2002,3,and 4's
| engines don't do as well.
| Any other ideas?
|
One issue that needs to be considered is how much does an AV program
affect your system's performance. Kasperski, NAV and McAfee have a
reputation for being resource hogs.
No AV product is ever going to be 100% full proof and detect every virus
all of the time. Malware is developed faster than protective measures.
The most realistic solution is to practice Safe Hex, pick a product or
products that you have FAITH in and hope for the best.
Computer users most at risk to malware are those clueless folks who
indiscriminately surf the web, D/L all kinds of junk and open E-mail
attachments etc. without any idea of the potential consequences.
People who frequent porn sites and online gambling are also at high
risk.
With the exception of mass attacks by a new threat, most people who
practice Safe Hex are at a very low risk of catching some kind of
malware.
Chas.
|
|
Posted by Art on September 5, 2005, 8:29 pm
If you were Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
>No AV product is ever going to be 100% full proof and detect every virus
>all of the time. Malware is developed faster than protective measures.
>The most realistic solution is to practice Safe Hex, pick a product or
>products that you have FAITH in and hope for the best.
I say never put any faith in any av. Those who do will take hits.
Art
http://home.epix.net/~artnpeg
|
|
Posted by * * Chas on September 5, 2005, 11:00 pm
If you were Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
| wrote:
|
| >No AV product is ever going to be 100% full proof and detect every
virus
| >all of the time. Malware is developed faster than protective
measures.
| >The most realistic solution is to practice Safe Hex, pick a product
or
| >products that you have FAITH in and hope for the best.
|
| I say never put any faith in any av. Those who do will take hits.
|
| Art
That's why it's capitalized!
Chas.
|
|
Posted by Morgan Ohlson on September 6, 2005, 11:25 am
If you were Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
>| Check here for some interesting results:
>| http://www.av-comparatives.org/
>|
>| It seems that in the Feb and Aug 05 On-demand comparative, Norton
> Anti-Virus is
>| second in detection, just behind Kaspersky.
>| Those who use the others, and swear by them, should also check out
> that site.
>| How the heck did Norton get up so high?
>| One answer is their latest engine is better. AFAIK, Norton's
> 2002,3,and 4's
>| engines don't do as well.
>| Any other ideas?
>|
>
> One issue that needs to be considered is how much does an AV program
> affect your system's performance.
Whats the problem?
>
> No AV product is ever going to be 100% full proof and detect every virus
> all of the time.
No, but if one scanner leaves you with 1 virus on hdd and the other leave 10
Which IS ACTUALLY THE CASE!!!
....it's hell of a difference.
> Malware is developed faster than protective measures.
So we have to pay mor för better scanners.
> The most realistic solution is to practice Safe Hex, pick a product or
> products that you have FAITH in and hope for the best.
Surely it improves more then a little.
> Computer users most at risk to malware are those clueless folks who
> indiscriminately surf the web, D/L all kinds of junk and open E-mail
> attachments etc. without any idea of the potential consequences.
....and above that never wash.
> With the exception of mass attacks by a new threat, most people who
> practice Safe Hex are at a very low risk of catching some kind of
> malware.
1. Safe Hex... very good precation. Probably pays well!!!
2. But, if and when you get any of the nasty plagues a very efficient virus
scanner is needed.
1 and 2 doesn't exclude each other... just make things easier depending on
situation.
Morgan O.
|
| Similar Threads | Posted | | NOD32, Kaspersky, e-trust, or Avast? | November 24, 2005, 3:50 pm |
| Kaspersky vs McAfee and Norton | June 12, 2007, 1:48 pm |
| Re: antivir vs avast and avg and mcafee/norton/pc-cillin? | May 27, 2006, 1:32 pm |
| mcafee vs avast home | April 4, 2006, 11:43 pm |
| avast searches out more viruses than kaspersky did | July 17, 2006, 4:42 am |
| Kaspersky 5.0 VS Nod32 | June 24, 2005, 4:34 pm |
| Kaspersky or NOD32? | July 30, 2006, 9:22 am |
| NOD32 vs Kaspersky | November 23, 2006, 12:46 pm |
| Re: NOD32 vs Kaspersky | November 25, 2006, 6:42 am |
| Re: NOD32 vs Kaspersky | November 25, 2006, 6:50 am |
|
|
|
XML site map