Best Virus Software for Windows Vista

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 )

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?

"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

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.

"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)

Your tests would be a lot more credible if you spelt "norton" correctly and
documented your testing methodology.

"Dan" 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
>
>

I've had my current Windows 2000 laptop for 4 years. The anti-virus software
I've had installed (originally Sophos, now Avast) has never detected a virus.
I've only ever had 2 viruses on that machine, both of which got through
before the anti-virus updates to detect them were available. One was detected
by me noticing that something wasn't right, and the other by the nework
admins noticing a lot of activity from my machine.

Neither of those viruses resulted from using email or www. They got in
through vulnerabilities in background services before there were either
patches to the vulnerabilities or updates to allow anti-virus software to
detect them. They certainly didn't get in through email or web browsing.

So using anti-virus software has done nothing for me. I still use anti-virus
software just in case I accidentally do something silly, but I wouldn't pay a
lot (preferably nothing!) for it.

"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)

AVG (from www.grisoft.com) is another frequently reccommended free
anti-virus tool. I've not used it myself, but you might want to look into it
before buying a commercial one, if Avast doesn't suit your needs.

"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

AVG Free works great on my Vista Home premium.
I don't install the e-mail scan part of it and I didn't on XP and haven't
had a virus in 4 years now.
And I scan the net a lot.

--
Carl G

"Mark" <Mark@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:5AE4047C-3ADC-4F28-8445-386DB368A897@microsoft.com...
> "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)
>
> AVG (from www.grisoft.com) is another frequently reccommended free
> anti-virus tool. I've not used it myself, but you might want to look into
> it
> before buying a commercial one, if Avast doesn't suit your needs.

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.

If you open weird attachments you are breaking security rule #1.

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

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.