Best Virus Software for Windows Vista

Cameron wrote:
> Anytime we get a computer we need virus protection. But with Windows
> Vista already using alot of system resources its hard to fine one
> that makes you computer run fine instead of acting likes it was made
> 1990.
> I've tested Avast , Mcafee , and Nortan on a laptop and desktop. Plus
> on a UMPC(the oqo)
>
> Here are the results for the laptop(Dual Core @ 2.0 GHz ; 2 GB Ram)
> Mcafee - Slows down way more than it should on a 2 GB ram system!
> Nortan - Works as good as it did on Windows XP. It runs fast.
> Avast - Its the fastest. But this is because its very "light weight"
> . Its a good choice for laptops I think.(Maybe just mine) [Good
> Choice]
>
> And the results for the Desktop(Dual Core @ 3.6 GHz ; 2 GB Ram)
> Mcafee - Runs a fast as avast. When running a game(Guild Wars) it
> slows down a bit.
> Nortan - Great. It scans very fast and without a freeze now and then.
> [Good Choice]
> Avast - I was shocked to see that Nortan a large and bulky Security
> app ran better than a light weight one! On a desktop too!
>
> UMPC results(1.5 GHz ; 1 GB Ram)
> Mcafee - had to uninstall it on first run
> Nortan - had to uninstall it because it crashed some apps
> Avast - Worked well but not as fast as it should of been[Good Choice]
>
> Well before buying any Expensive software I'd advise you to check out
> Avast. If you don't like it try Nortan. Don't try Mcafee though.
>
>
> Testing by zllive.com ( z l l i v e . c o m )

I have to say NOD32 has always done the business for me.

http://www.nod32.com

--
Regards

Ray

Cameron wrote:
> Anytime we get a computer we need virus protection. But with Windows
> Vista already using alot of system resources its hard to fine one
> that makes you computer run fine instead of acting likes it was made
> 1990.
> I've tested Avast , Mcafee , and Nortan on a laptop and desktop. Plus
> on a UMPC(the oqo)
>
> Here are the results for the laptop(Dual Core @ 2.0 GHz ; 2 GB Ram)
> Mcafee - Slows down way more than it should on a 2 GB ram system!
> Nortan - Works as good as it did on Windows XP. It runs fast.
> Avast - Its the fastest. But this is because its very "light weight"
> . Its a good choice for laptops I think.(Maybe just mine) [Good
> Choice]
>
> And the results for the Desktop(Dual Core @ 3.6 GHz ; 2 GB Ram)
> Mcafee - Runs a fast as avast. When running a game(Guild Wars) it
> slows down a bit.
> Nortan - Great. It scans very fast and without a freeze now and then.
> [Good Choice]
> Avast - I was shocked to see that Nortan a large and bulky Security
> app ran better than a light weight one! On a desktop too!
>
> UMPC results(1.5 GHz ; 1 GB Ram)
> Mcafee - had to uninstall it on first run
> Nortan - had to uninstall it because it crashed some apps
> Avast - Worked well but not as fast as it should of been[Good Choice]
>
> Well before buying any Expensive software I'd advise you to check out
> Avast. If you don't like it try Nortan. Don't try Mcafee though.
>
>
> Testing by zllive.com ( z l l i v e . c o m )

I have to say NOD32 has always done the business for me.

http://www.nod32.com

--
Regards

Ray

"B. Nice" <b__nice@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:qcgrv2hce8kudka6e24agrced8vi1j9663@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 18 Mar 2007 14:22:35 -0500, "Dan" <dan@nospam.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>"B. Nice" <b__nice@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:qgppv2p2b3gs39b5fbtacme2ieu81rjivt@4ax.com...
>>> On Sun, 18 Mar 2007 02:01:19 -0500, "Dan" <dan@nospam.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"B. Nice" <b__nice@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:vdkpv21f5h0lflj7h2htdmbpudcef02ran@4ax.com...
>>>>> On Sat, 17 Mar 2007 21:25:40 -0400, "Cameron" <zlnetworks@comcast.net>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Anytime we get a computer we need virus protection.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes. At least that is what the security industry wants you to believe.
>>>>>
>>>>> The question is: Why do you deliberately plan on using your computer
>>>>> in a way that makes you vulnerable to viruses?
>>>>
>>>>All you need to do is use e-mail to be vulnerable.
>>>>
>>>>Dan
>>>>
>>>
>>> How? E-mailing itself is not vulnerable.
>>>
>>> Security requires that you use robust software, which rules out stuff
>>> like Outlook/Outllook Exress.
>>
>>Are you suggesting that a more robust email client will stop bad
>>attachments
>>and hidden code within emails?
>>
>>Dan
>>
>
> E-mail itself does not make you vulnerable. Period.

Using it does.....
>
> If you open weird attachments you are breaking security rule #1.

How many users, typical users, not power or pro users, know what is safe and
what is not? How many will be able to discern that an email from a friend is
infected and therefor the friends computer is infected and is acting as a
host for Malware? My point was that using email does expose a computer to
risks. Whether you are a novice, a power, or pro user, you are still taking
chances. 0 day exploits, new vulnerabilities, and new exploits are
discovered daily. To think that one person could be good enough to keep up
with all of these changes and protect their computer with the effectiveness
of a good security solution is IMHO a fantasy.

>
> E-mails don't contain "hidden code". Or maybe you are thinking of
> stuff like scripting? - having such stuff enabled breaks another
> security rule.

Scripting or malicious code can be embedded in attachments as well as some
native mail formats. You are right though, allowing these to run in a email
client is also foolish, but again how many typical users know how to do
this, much less know what the heck scripting or embedded code is and how to
avoid it?

>
> Mail clients of course may have vulnerabilities in itself - but don't
> expect your anti-virus product to protect you against exploits for
> such vulnerabilities.

No, that is what security updates are for, as well as hardware firewalls and
other such measures. Do some security vendors prey on the fears of those
that are less knowledgeable? Absolutely. But there is a good middle ground.

I myself use a Cisco router with configured firewall as my first line of
defense. Second line is using the windows native firewall on all internal
machines, along with a good lightweight AV solution from Bitdefender. I also
use Windows defender as a backup AS solution. Do I have problems, or have I
had an infection in the past few years? No, but if I inadvertently do, I
have the tools to clean it up and keep my network up and running.

The typical user with a decent router/firewall, a good security suite such
as Bitdefender AV+, and a little bit of coaching can be kept safe. That is
until you add a teenager to the equation, then all bets are off.

Dan

On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 16:08:54 -0500, "Dan" <dan@nospam.net> wrote:

>
>"B. Nice" <b__nice@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:qcgrv2hce8kudka6e24agrced8vi1j9663@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 18 Mar 2007 14:22:35 -0500, "Dan" <dan@nospam.net> wrote:
>
>> E-mail itself does not make you vulnerable. Period.
>
>Using it does.....
>>
>> If you open weird attachments you are breaking security rule #1.
>
>How many users, typical users, not power or pro users, know what is safe and
>what is not?

Internet Security rule #1: Don't click links in e-mails and don't open
e-mail attachments unless you are 100% confident what it is.

A user unable to grasp something that simple should'nt be allowed on
the internet. Such users can install all the security apps they like
and still they will get burned.

>How many will be able to discern that an email from a friend is
>infected and therefor the friends computer is infected and is acting as a
>host for Malware?

No idea. Problem is anti-virus products are'nt really very effective.

>My point was that using email does expose a computer to
>risks. Whether you are a novice, a power, or pro user, you are still taking
>chances. 0 day exploits, new vulnerabilities, and new exploits are
>discovered daily.

Yes. But virus protection won't be of any help there - which was the
claim you made.

>To think that one person could be good enough to keep up
>with all of these changes and protect their computer with the effectiveness
>of a good security solution is IMHO a fantasy.

I don't know. I've been running without antivirus, firewall
illusionware, anti-spyware a.so. for years without problems.

BTW, "a good security solution" in the form of software and hardware
alone is a fantasy.

>>
>> E-mails don't contain "hidden code". Or maybe you are thinking of
>> stuff like scripting? - having such stuff enabled breaks another
>> security rule.
>
>Scripting or malicious code can be embedded in attachments as well as some
>native mail formats. You are right though, allowing these to run in a email
>client is also foolish, but again how many typical users know how to do
>this, much less know what the heck scripting or embedded code is and how to
>avoid it?

If they don't know they better learn.

<snip>

>The typical user with a decent router/firewall, a good security suite such
>as Bitdefender AV+, and a little bit of coaching can be kept safe.

Maybe. Unless they run inherently insecure software like IE or
Outlook/Outlook Express of course.

>That is until you add a teenager to the equation, then all bets are off.

Kids and teenagers should'nt have admin rights until they understand
what that means. Problem is most parents don't have a clue :-)

"B. Nice" <b__nice@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:aj1uv29sk7j2thn2iit29jm1h3im3nf4cq@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 16:08:54 -0500, "Dan" <dan@nospam.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>"B. Nice" <b__nice@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:qcgrv2hce8kudka6e24agrced8vi1j9663@4ax.com...
>>> On Sun, 18 Mar 2007 14:22:35 -0500, "Dan" <dan@nospam.net> wrote:
>>
>>> E-mail itself does not make you vulnerable. Period.
>>
>>Using it does.....
>>>
>>> If you open weird attachments you are breaking security rule #1.
>>
>>How many users, typical users, not power or pro users, know what is safe
>>and
>>what is not?
>
> Internet Security rule #1: Don't click links in e-mails and don't open
> e-mail attachments unless you are 100% confident what it is.
>
> A user unable to grasp something that simple should'nt be allowed on
> the internet. Such users can install all the security apps they like
> and still they will get burned.

90 percent of my customers are in this bracket. And I seriously doubt my
area of the country is any different from the rest of the U.S. People for
the most part look at a computer as an appliance and expect it to work like
one as well. Unless you are in direct contact with end users on a daily
basis, its hard for the us to realise how far away from useable a computer
is for the average person.
>
>>How many will be able to discern that an email from a friend is
>>infected and therefor the friends computer is infected and is acting as a
>>host for Malware?
>
> No idea. Problem is anti-virus products are'nt really very effective.
>
>>My point was that using email does expose a computer to
>>risks. Whether you are a novice, a power, or pro user, you are still
>>taking
>>chances. 0 day exploits, new vulnerabilities, and new exploits are
>>discovered daily.
>
> Yes. But virus protection won't be of any help there - which was the
> claim you made.

Heuraistic scanning has come a long way. But then the user are needs to be
smart enough to know of the detected "possible" malware is legit or not.

>
>>To think that one person could be good enough to keep up
>>with all of these changes and protect their computer with the
>>effectiveness
>>of a good security solution is IMHO a fantasy.
>
> I don't know. I've been running without antivirus, firewall
> illusionware, anti-spyware a.so. for years without problems.

And how do you know for sure? How would you know if a rootkit hadnt been
malicously installed for instance?

>
> BTW, "a good security solution" in the form of software and hardware
> alone is a fantasy.

Agreed, brain matter is needed above all.

>
>>>
>>> E-mails don't contain "hidden code". Or maybe you are thinking of
>>> stuff like scripting? - having such stuff enabled breaks another
>>> security rule.
>>
>>Scripting or malicious code can be embedded in attachments as well as some
>>native mail formats. You are right though, allowing these to run in a
>>email
>>client is also foolish, but again how many typical users know how to do
>>this, much less know what the heck scripting or embedded code is and how
>>to
>>avoid it?
>
> If they don't know they better learn.

Sorry, but from my experience with the public, this isnt going to happen.
There is a huge gap between what techies think is easy to use software and
OS's and what the public actually needs.

>
> <snip>
>
>>The typical user with a decent router/firewall, a good security suite such
>>as Bitdefender AV+, and a little bit of coaching can be kept safe.
>
> Maybe. Unless they run inherently insecure software like IE or
> Outlook/Outlook Express of course.

Most of my users are switched over to Opera and its built in email client.
Not all are willing to switch. Outlook is hard to get business users away
from, especially if they are used to using it.

>
>>That is until you add a teenager to the equation, then all bets are off.
>
> Kids and teenagers should'nt have admin rights until they understand
> what that means. Problem is most parents don't have a clue :-)

To True

I am a Comcast user and there FREE version of MacAfee works flawless with
VistaU

D


"Cameron" <zlnetworks@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:EC2F2CB2-E6E3-42EB-B3A0-C98C59BECD07@microsoft.com...
> Anytime we get a computer we need virus protection. But with Windows Vista
> already using alot of system resources its hard to fine one that makes you
> computer run fine instead of acting likes it was made 1990.
> I've tested Avast , Mcafee , and Nortan on a laptop and desktop. Plus on a
> UMPC(the oqo)
>
> Here are the results for the laptop(Dual Core @ 2.0 GHz ; 2 GB Ram)
> Mcafee - Slows down way more than it should on a 2 GB ram system!
> Nortan - Works as good as it did on Windows XP. It runs fast.
> Avast - Its the fastest. But this is because its very "light weight" . Its
> a good choice for laptops I think.(Maybe just mine) [Good Choice]
>
> And the results for the Desktop(Dual Core @ 3.6 GHz ; 2 GB Ram)
> Mcafee - Runs a fast as avast. When running a game(Guild Wars) it slows
> down a bit.
> Nortan - Great. It scans very fast and without a freeze now and then.
> [Good Choice]
> Avast - I was shocked to see that Nortan a large and bulky Security app
> ran better than a light weight one! On a desktop too!
>
> UMPC results(1.5 GHz ; 1 GB Ram)
> Mcafee - had to uninstall it on first run
> Nortan - had to uninstall it because it crashed some apps
> Avast - Worked well but not as fast as it should of been[Good Choice]
>
> Well before buying any Expensive software I'd advise you to check out
> Avast. If you don't like it try Nortan. Don't try Mcafee though.
>
>
> Testing by zllive.com ( z l l i v e . c o m )