|
Which Anti-Virus software do you use? (pg. 3)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| DigitalMP |
That's bull. Surfing with Firefox does NOT eliminate all spyware transmission, and one spyware scanner will NOT find all spyware.
SpySweeper has been the best for me, but the others still find things that are left behind.
Norton's virus definition updates have become fewer and more far between than in the past, while other apps have become more freqeuent, but I do agree that Symantec Corporate is better and less resource-heavy thanother Norton apps. |
|
|
| Candeeman |
| Norton Internet Security ' 06 and Microsoft Ad Aware |
|
|
| simms327 |
| quote: | Originally posted by VERTiG0
Maybe we should all run Macs?
*ducks*
I'm sooooo ing considering one as a second machine now that I get the employee discount. |
i just got a mac - i love it - and i was a pc guy all my life
want to share the employee discount?
but seriously, get a new imac - under 1500 bucks for a very capable computer with great software. |
|
|
| loconet |
| quote: | Originally posted by cereal3825
For anti-virus I use Symantec AntiVirus Corp Edition, it's small and fast.
I use no anti-spyware software at all.
Here is a tip, DO NOT USE IE!
I only use Firefox, and i have yet to use any form of anti-spyware software for over a year.
I installed SpyBot S&D to see if I acquired any spyware, and nothing.
No need for all that anti-spy software. Just surf smart (no using IE).
Steve |
+1
Not everyone needs a million applications preventing spyware/viruses from getting in. 90% of the time, those problems can be prevented by staying away from the main source (IE) and spotting malicious code from other sources (ie: don't install every piece of crap out there. i guess it helps if you have written some in the past ..haha) . I also scan with AVG and S&D from time to time.. haven't found anything in a few years. |
|
|
| TheVrk |
| quote: | Originally posted by rabbitjoker
NOD32.
http://www.nod32.com/
Consumes the least amount of resources of any/all anti-virus software.
Fastest scan rate, lowest memory use, highest detection rate. |
You guys told me about this a few months back, and ever since i've
started using it I've had NO second thought about it.
EASLIY worth $39.00/yr:eyes:
Thx again for this RJ :gsmile: |
|
|
| Jem_hadar |
Currently using Avast! on my computer for protection...
I had been using Norton AV before and in the end was wholey disappointed with it... missed some viruses that got my computer infected (which Avast later after installed found and removed!), and just generally tended to bog down my system, used A LOT of system resources for what it did I thought (compared to Avast anyways!)
But looking at McAfee VirusScan Plus 2008 with SiteAdvisor, I am starting to wonder if possibly McAfee might not be a better choice than Avast!?
Those are its specs. Only $28.99 to purchase as well -- which is VERY reasonable... when most run for at least $50, but usually more like $70+
So when I get a new compy, would do you computer tech ppl think...
simplar re-install fee Avast, or should I spend that $30 and get the McAfee virus/spyware suite??? :conf:
Would love to hear some personal opinions on this matter.
The better of the two virus programs for detection/protection/removal. (Also, Im curious as to how "bloated" and a system hog ppl consider the new (old proior version) of McAfee. Bc AFAIK Avast is an excellent non-blated virus prog that isnt going to soak up all your resources).
After doing some google research, im still somewhat on the fence..
(What is clear though is that me ditching Norton years back was prolly a very excellent decision though). |
|
|
| exstasie |
...don't use one... :eek:
MAC :D
But yeah, I think I have Symantec AntiVirus or whatever on my Mac...whatever Anti-Virus software York gives out for free. |
|
|
| Orko |
Symantec AntiVirus Corporate
I've been using for 4 years now, and I probably won't use anything else. |
|
|
| TheVrk |
| quote: | Originally posted by rabbitjoker
NOD32.
http://www.nod32.com/
Consumes the least amount of resources of any/all anti-virus software.
Fastest scan rate, lowest memory use, highest detection rate. |
Dan, since RJ suggested this anti-virus program to me 3 yrs ago, i've NEVER had a problem of ANY kind, let alone a virus.
Totally shocked me in its capabilities and let alone the fact it uses the least resources.
100% stand behind this product. And its only approx $40-50/yr!
Dont try anything else, this IS the one. :) |
|
|
| Orko |
| quote: | Originally posted by VERTiG0
Nothing shows up in my inbound/outbound connections that shouldn't be there :) |
What are you using to check? |
|
|
| MikeyN |
people like to believe the illusion that macs dont get viruses at all, they just arent as widely reported as the viruses for PC's.
i like my macbook, now. now that ive ripped half the parts out and replaced them for others. ty Generic Ram Modules that were ing corroded on the contacts. (thanks Vince, the Mushkin Ram runs really well) |
|
|
| DigiNut |
McAfee is complete garbage. Don't even bother.
Personally, I don't even bother with any A/V anymore. The whole point of keeping viruses and spyware out is that they'll wreck your system performance, and that's exactly what A/V does. The cure is worse than the disease. This isn't theoretical, some people have actually tested it:
http://www.thepcspy.com/read/what_r..._windows_down/5
If you absolutely have to run something, use Avast, it seems to be the least expensive (in resource terms) while still actually doing useful work.
But most modern threats aren't detectable/removable via conventional anti-virus techniques anyway. There are people working on the problem, but no solutions are production-ready yet. I think that virtualization will become the de facto solution long before then; it's inexpensive, it's getting fairly mature, and can be made almost transparent. For now, if I've downloaded anything I think might be sketchy, I just submit it to an online virus scan and/or runas with a heavily restricted temporary user account. |
|
|
|
|
