On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 03:51:37 -0400, "mazorj" <mazorj@xxxxxx>
wrote:
Quote:
>
> "Ken Blake, MVP" <kblake@xxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:2htv35dmjv1ismeg55v38btbgvbf55obvm@xxxxxx Quote:
> > On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 16:34:39 -0400, "mazorj" <mazorj@xxxxxx>
> > wrote:
> > Quote:
> >>
> >> "Ken Blake, MVP" <kblake@xxxxxx> wrote in
> >> message
> >> news:d4hs35h9nviutigmuj4gn9k5r6vvtegqnu@xxxxxx
>
> ... Quote:
Quote:
> >> > In my view, and that of many of us here, Norton is the *worst*
> >> > anti-virus program available. I wouldn't rely on what it tells
> >> > you.
> >>
> >> How current is that view? There was a time when Norton was indeed
> >> mediocre after resting on their laurels but they seem to have
> >> gotten
> >> their act together lately.
> >
> > They are, in general, a lot worse than mediocre.
> >
> > However, bear in mind that the latest version, AntiVirus 2009, has
> > gotten much better reports from several people, several of whom I
> > trust. However I have no personal experience with it, and I am not
> > willing to use it myself, nor even to yet recommend it to anyone
> > else. >
> I'm using NIS 2009. NIS 2008 came with the machine but I checked
> reviews before renewing my subscription and updating it. Almost
> everyone seems to agree that it's much improved over the old Norton
> with its well-deserved poor reputation.
Yes, as I said, I've heard much the same thing from others I respect.
Quote:
> It may not be everyone's #1
> pick, but there's no reason to shun it as in the past. If it comes
> bundled, it's certainly good enough as your starting point.
It's not that I shun NIS 2009 or Norton AntiVirus 2009. It's that I
shun Symantec. They have been an extremely poor and unreliable company
in recent years, and until they convince me that are much better than
they used to be, I won't have anything to do with them or any of their
products. Norton AntiVirus 2009 *may* be a first step for them to
convince me of that, but it's not enough for me yet. I'm waiting to
see what the future brings.
Quote:
> However, I'm a belt and suspenders type on security. No reason why
> you cannot and should not have an arsenal of several security
> sweepers. I had SpySweeper and ZoneAlarm running on my XP machine
> back when Norton was sucking wind in the security apps market. (Just
> don't run two firewalls at once.) And yes, theoretically I might
> still have malware even though three separate, reputable sweepers
> couldn't find anything, and theoretically there might be one obscure
> program out there that could catch it; but with three sweepers in
> action, I'm already verging into diminishing returns. If my 200 GB
> "vanishing unused disk space" problem is due to malware rather than
> some obscure process run amok, I'll never find it.
>
> Anyway, thanks for the comments.
You're welcome.
--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience
Please Reply to the Newsgroup