Could someone give me some plain language help please? When I bought Norton
360, I thought it would replace the Windows defender series and that this
would be a good thing to do. Clearly some people do not rate Norton, so would
it be best for me to:

1) Use Windows Defender only, for firewall, anti-virus etc etc, or 2) Use
Norton for anti-virus and windows for everything else? or 3) Find another
anti-virus and use it alongside Windows Defender for everything else? Should
I then also discard the other packages I have bought, including my registry
organiser and the ant-Spyware package. There is so much stuff on the market,
some guidance on an effective line-up would be great. Thank you.

"SG" wrote:

> >>>I never suggested to use ERUNT<<<
>
> Nope you didn't and I missed that, my apologies.
>
> >>>Based on what...your thinking? You've got to be kidding!<<<
>
> Well lets see here Kayman, maybe I should have said something besides
> "THINK" and suggested after my 18 some years with computer experience, would
> that suite you better?
>
> >>>(but *I* use both utilities without any problems)<<<
>
> So, because you didn't have problems that makes these two programs SAFE?,
> you got to be kidding :>). I wasn't after you Kayman for what you posted,
> not sure why, but it seems to me you took this personally and that's not the
> case at all. When I see these snake oil programs and that's all they are, I
> simply point out they are dangerous. It's been debated for years and
> probably always will be about compacting the registry and in my professional
> opinion it doesn't amount to a grain of salt. Do some of these programs
> really work? I'm sure some do and I know in Win98 Scanreg /Fix and Opt did
> indeed reduce the size of the Registry. The question was, is it noticeable
> enough for the user to tell and in many test done by me and many others
> years was no. BTW, in Win98 and WinMe if the Registry contain more than 500
> KB of empty data blocks, Windows Registry Checker automatically optimized
> it.
>
> When I see things like:
> "You may want to disable the tracker to avoid this message in the future
> (see the Windows help for information on how to do this)" this is referring
> to the NTREGOPT sometimes fails with error 1450.
>
> Right, now lets turn off Tracker so we can run his program without the error
> not really knowing what other problems this my cause the user and if it did
> no one would know what or where this new error may be coming from.
>
>
> " To make sure the programs are executed with proper administrative
> privileges, you should however turn off User Account Control in Vista's
> system settings "
>
> Nothing at all about turning off UAC and the dangers this can cause, for
> example, the problem lies when turning off UAC after Vista has been used for
> a while with UAC turned on. Vista intercepts any file operations that
> attempts to write to a Program Files directory for a specific app, like when
> a program tries to create a saved file for example. These files are
> virtualized to a special Program Data folder instead. If you save a file and
> then turn off UAC, virtualization is also turned off. So then the program
> can not find the saved file. This can also happen with anything else the
> application tries to store in its program files directory. You can Google
> "dangers turning off UAC" and find many reasons NOT to turn it off. I find
> it amazing the author suggest totally disabling one of the best security
> features ever in windows only to compact the Registry that supposedly speeds
> up the system. WOW what a trade off, lets all get infected with Spyware,
> Trojans and Viruses, but not to worry, with our Registry compacted it will
> make getting rid of these pest much faster.
>
>
> "Should I disable Windows XP's System Restore function when using ERUNT?
> Yes! Though System Restore backs up more than just the registry, the
> registry is essentially all you need to revert your system to a previous
> state."
>
> Now you ask me if I was kidding and you should have ask the author. Disable
> XP's System Restore for what? to save a little hard drive space? man this is
> unbelievable. He says the registry is essentially all you need to revert
> your system to a previous state. Humm, well I guess MS screwed up when they
> added all the other features that go along with System Restore eh? Hard
> Drive space is just about a thing of the past and as cheap as they are now
> no one should be to worried about space. DVD's, CD Writers, Memory Cards and
> 8 Gig pocket drives at Wal-Mart for $79.00, USB to IDE/SATA cables drives
> makes it easy for more than enough backup space.
>
> Well enough said and again I do apologize if I worded my post to the extent
> if offended you, it surely wasn't meant to be that way. You can have the
> last word as I will be moving on and sorry to the OP for high-jacking this
> thread.
>
>
> --
> All the best,
> SG
>
> ALEX NICHOL
> (1935-2005)
> http://www.aumha.org/alex.htm
> You will never be forgotten my friend
>
> "Kayman" <kaymanDeleteThis@operamail.com> wrote in message
> news:ea4FW7yeIHA.4476@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>
>