Best ANTI-VIRUS program that is Vista compatible

Another sniveling little coward who is afraid to use his name and libels
American corporations.

DSH
----------------------------------

"Mhzjunkie" <newsabuse@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ese57r$i01$1@news.datemas.de...

> D. Spencer Hines spewed out this bit, and i'll scatter a few bits myself:
>
>> "confused..." <confused...@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:3399DD3F-D2F8-43D8-887A-E09C123D36DE@microsoft.com...
>>
>>> I'm using Kaspersky Anti virus 6 with windows vista basic, Kaspersky
>>> reports
>>> that all protection components are running yet Widows security
>>> reports that
>>> Kaspersky isnt turned on at all, after the prompt to turn Kaspersky
>>> back on
>>> it still reports Malware Protection Off. What report Is correct and
>>> is my antivirus even running at all ????
>>>
>> I am SURE happy I'm sitting here with XP Pro SP2 and Norton Internet
>> Security 2007, which works SMOOTHLY and EFFICIENTLY and takes up VERY
>> little of my time worrying about it. I just update it daily and it
>> does all it's supposed to do.
>
> And I'm sure glad you're happy. Just the other day I had to clean up an XP
> computer that had Norton internet security on it. It was infected to the
> point that the owner couldn't even use it. Norton antivirus said
> everything was fine and dandy. Scanned it with Kapsersky and cleaned a
> crap can full of infected files. Even the restore partition was loaded
> with infected .HTML files.
>
>> Windows Defender does the SAME.
>
> Yeah, that's a spyware killer right there.
>
> --
> Mhzjunkie
>
> 1 PRINT "Windows Vista ERROR"
> GOTO 1
> END
>

Show us the evidence -- with source and verbatim quotations.

DSH

"RobDee" <robd@terra.es> wrote in message
news:54vsenF231hvnU1@mid.individual.net...

> I can echo this a hundred times over. The record figure that Kaspersky
> removed from a Norton supposed Internet Secure machine was 1023 items -
> some of which were real dangers!
>
> Isn't there a story going around that malware writers specifically exploit
> Norton "protected" computers?
>
> Norton is the biggest POS I ever seen - and as you said - it can get so
> bad that the computer becomes inoperable. While Norton happily reporst
> everything is hunky dory!

I never even mentioned Antivirus Capabilities.

I simply pointed out that Windows Defender, like Norton Internet Security,
runs SMOOTHLY and EFFICIENTLY on my box and takes up very little of my time.

Read what I wrote again....

Then take a remedial course in Basic English Reading Comprehension 101 at
your local Community College.

Report back with your grade and you will be provided with additional
instructions.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Veni, Vidi, Calcitravi Asinum
------------------------------------------------------

"David H. Lipman" <DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net> wrote in message
news:eD%23VTcmXHHA.2636@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

> From: "D. Spencer Hines" <poguemidden@hotmail.com>
>
> | I am SURE happy I'm sitting here with XP Pro SP2 and Norton Internet
> | Security 2007, which works SMOOTHLY and EFFICIENTLY and takes up VERY
> | little of my time worrying about it. I just update it daily and it does
> | all it's supposed to do.
> |
> | Windows Defender does the SAME.
> |
> | DSH
>
> Windows Defender is NOT anti virus. WD covers non-viral malware of the
> class adware/spyware.
>
> --
> Dave
> http://www.claymania.com/removal-trojan-adware.html
> http://www.ik-cs.com/got-a-virus.htm

Sun, 4 Mar 2007 09:25:44 -0500 from Mickey Segal
<not_monitored@example.com>:
> The Norton 2007 products are way
> worse than previous versions.

Good lord! I didn't think it was possible. :-)

In the 1980s Peter Norton wrote good utilities -- they were clean and
fast and did what they were supposed to do. But he sold the software
*and* his name to Symantec, which slapped the Norton brand on ...
well, you know.

--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com/

Wrong.

The current version of NIS takes less overhead than some previous versions
and runs faster. There are no significant delays.

You are bugling from cuniculan-pygan ignorance and FUD.

NIS costs more -- and is worth it in spades. Price is not a problem with
me. I pay for Quality and Reliability.

NIS 2007 is the best version so far -- and I'll bet I've been running
Norton/Symantec products longer than you've been out of diapers.

'Nuff Said.

Adios.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Veni, Vidi, Calcitravi Asinum

"Mickey Segal" <not_monitored@example.com> wrote in message
news:%236CRGkmXHHA.3848@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

> "D. Spencer Hines" <poguemidden@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:ufDgWxhXHHA.1244@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

>>I am SURE happy I'm sitting here with XP Pro SP2 and Norton Internet
>>Security 2007, which works SMOOTHLY and EFFICIENTLY and takes up VERY
>>little of my time worrying about it. I just update it daily and it does
>>all it's supposed to do.
>
> Very funny. But seriously, Norton products slow down a machine very much,
> particularly when starting the computer. The Norton 2007 products are way
> worse than previous versions. I switched to NOD32, which runs with very
> little overhead and has the best record of any antivirus product. Another
> product to consider is AVG free version, since NOD32 is about $30 for the
> first copy and $20 for other copies and renewals.

From: "D. Spencer Hines" <poguemidden@hotmail.com>

| I never even mentioned Antivirus Capabilities.
|
| I simply pointed out that Windows Defender, like Norton Internet Security,
| runs SMOOTHLY and EFFICIENTLY on my box and takes up very little of my time.
|
| Read what I wrote again....
|

< BS snipped >

|
| DSH
|

Don't be a wise a$$!

The subject matter was *best anti virus* not anti spyware so reference was oof base. I
merely qualified the distinction.

Whether WD runs "...SMOOTHLY and EFFICIENTLY..." on your PC has no bearing on the subject
matter.

EoD

--
Dave
http://www.claymania.com/removal-trojan-adware.html
http://www.ik-cs.com/got-a-virus.htm

From: "D. Spencer Hines" <poguemidden@hotmail.com>

| Show us the evidence -- with source and verbatim quotations.
|
| DSH

There are numerous vulnerabilities in NAV/SAV from handling RTF to various Archive file
types.

Here's just the latest vulnerability...
http://www.ciac.org/ciac/bulletins/r-170.shtml

Then there's...
http://www.ciac.org/ciac/bulletins/q-003.shtml

But here's one that was actually exploited...
http://www.ciac.org/ciac/bulletins/q-218.shtml


--
Dave
http://www.claymania.com/removal-trojan-adware.html
http://www.ik-cs.com/got-a-virus.htm

From: "Stan Brown" <the_stan_brown@fastmail.fm>

| Sun, 4 Mar 2007 09:25:44 -0500 from Mickey Segal
| <not_monitored@example.com>:
>> The Norton 2007 products are way
>> worse than previous versions.
|
| Good lord! I didn't think it was possible. :-)
|
| In the 1980s Peter Norton wrote good utilities -- they were clean and
| fast and did what they were supposed to do. But he sold the software
| *and* his name to Symantec, which slapped the Norton brand on ...
| well, you know.
|

Symantec has bloated it.

I still remember when NAV bought CPAV and then integrated the engine into NAV and the
quality of their product increased dramatically.

Symantec/Norton Ghost is the only Symantec product I swear by and not swear at :-)


--
Dave
http://www.claymania.com/removal-trojan-adware.html
http://www.ik-cs.com/got-a-virus.htm

I would have agreed with you regarding NAV & Ghost...until I installed NAV
2007 as an upgrade on my laptop running XP. It so corrupted my system that
anything short of a total reformat of the hard drive couldn't fix things. I
spent more than twenty hours with Symantec tech support people (no
exaggeration)...and finally gave up. I now have a new laptop with
Vista...and am dealing with an entirely different set of problems. However,
I had problems with NAV 2007 in Vista as well and ended up with Defender and
Life One Care as they would run smoothly. NAV 2007 in XP was a mess for
me...and the first indication of a problem after loading the program was
that I couldn't get the main program window to fully open...and I couldn't
see any menu list. NAV 2007 came with my new notebook and the Vista
OS...and some initial problems were traced to the NAV. Defender at least
runs well.

Yes...NAV gets good reviews. BUT...if an anti-virus program can't be
successfully installed, there's a problem. Symantec also has a problem with
their tech support service. They are efficient in handling 90% of the
problems, I'm sure...and their tech support people are friendly enough.
But, if you have a major problem and have already tried the usual fixes,
there's nothing you can do to avoid dealing with the first wave of tech
support people with only average skills. By the time I finally got a call
from a knowledgeable Symantec rep in Oregon (who did know a lot about
computer software), I had already thrown in the towel.

Before anyone assumes that this is just a rag on Symantec, it's not. All of
the major software corporations handle issues very similarly. It's the
bottom line that matters. I really believe that the cost of being able to
quickly escalate the level of tech support when needed is so great that they
avoid it. The cost of having really knowledgeable techs waiting in the
wings for the small percentage of cases that are real problems is no doubt
too high. Perhaps, until there is a major uprising of some kind, I'll just
have to do a lot of my own "work arounds". I started a list of the problems
I was finding with Vista and the list is so long that I think I'll just wait
until all the patches/fixes etc are available and download them all. Right
now, I'm feeling very much like a "computer software crash dummy".

Barry




"David H. Lipman" <DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net> wrote in message
news:OQnN7HpXHHA.3984@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> From: "Stan Brown" <the_stan_brown@fastmail.fm>
>
> | Sun, 4 Mar 2007 09:25:44 -0500 from Mickey Segal
> | <not_monitored@example.com>:
>>> The Norton 2007 products are way
>>> worse than previous versions.
> |
> | Good lord! I didn't think it was possible. :-)
> |
> | In the 1980s Peter Norton wrote good utilities -- they were clean and
> | fast and did what they were supposed to do. But he sold the software
> | *and* his name to Symantec, which slapped the Norton brand on ...
> | well, you know.
> |
>
> Symantec has bloated it.
>
> I still remember when NAV bought CPAV and then integrated the engine into
> NAV and the
> quality of their product increased dramatically.
>
> Symantec/Norton Ghost is the only Symantec product I swear by and not
> swear at :-)
>
>
> --
> Dave
> http://www.claymania.com/removal-trojan-adware.html
> http://www.ik-cs.com/got-a-virus.htm
>
>

I'm running both NIS 2007 and Defender on my machine and both run quite
smoothly and very fast.

DSH

"Barry" <hiouchibear@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:etUKRN6XHHA.4440@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

>I would have agreed with you regarding NAV & Ghost...until I installed NAV
>2007 as an upgrade on my laptop running XP. It so corrupted my system that
>anything short of a total reformat of the hard drive couldn't fix things.
>I spent more than twenty hours with Symantec tech support people (no
>exaggeration)...and finally gave up. I now have a new laptop with
>Vista...and am dealing with an entirely different set of problems.
>However, I had problems with NAV 2007 in Vista as well and ended up with
>Defender and Life One Care as they would run smoothly. NAV 2007 in XP was
>a mess for me...and the first indication of a problem after loading the
>program was that I couldn't get the main program window to fully open...and
>I couldn't see any menu list. NAV 2007 came with my new notebook and the
>Vista OS...and some initial problems were traced to the NAV. Defender at
>least runs well.
>
> Yes...NAV gets good reviews. BUT...if an anti-virus program can't be
> successfully installed, there's a problem. Symantec also has a problem
> with their tech support service. They are efficient in handling 90% of
> the problems, I'm sure...and their tech support people are friendly
> enough. But, if you have a major problem and have already tried the usual
> fixes, there's nothing you can do to avoid dealing with the first wave of
> tech support people with only average skills. By the time I finally got a
> call from a knowledgeable Symantec rep in Oregon (who did know a lot about
> computer software), I had already thrown in the towel.
>
> Before anyone assumes that this is just a rag on Symantec, it's not. All
> of the major software corporations handle issues very similarly. It's the
> bottom line that matters. I really believe that the cost of being able to
> quickly escalate the level of tech support when needed is so great that
> they avoid it. The cost of having really knowledgeable techs waiting in
> the wings for the small percentage of cases that are real problems is no
> doubt too high. Perhaps, until there is a major uprising of some kind,
> I'll just have to do a lot of my own "work arounds". I started a list of
> the problems I was finding with Vista and the list is so long that I think
> I'll just wait until all the patches/fixes etc are available and download
> them all. Right now, I'm feeling very much like a "computer software
> crash dummy".
>
> Barry