Posted on 11/06/2009 8:03:24 AM PST by Gomez
McAfee is definitely a pig too. It’s kind of funny really, the AVs that charge really tend to stink, while the AVs that are free tend to be pretty lean and mean.
Good read:
Symantec has always been a problematic company. Every revision of everything they’ve ever bought got a little worse until it became unusable. Norton utilities crossed that line in 2000 or so, used to be I wouldn’t even think about running a machine without Norton, but every version after Symantec bought them was a little more of a pig and a little less useful, until finally it became worthless.
That mirrors my experience exactly.
NU used to be what SysInternals is today.
Bump to read later.
Symantec still owes me money for the rebate they cheated me out of and the update subscription they cut short on me.
They will never get another penny from me.
Speaking strictly server-side now, when we switched away from Symantec we noticed nearly a 100-mb drop in non-page pool RAM, which, inasmuch as we were running Server2003 with the 3GB switch and an app for which NPP was critical, was a real load. Switching to Sophos on those boxes reclaimed the memory. It just works differently, not necessarily better (in fact, it didn't do as well catching viruses).
None of them were perfect. Kaspersky was pretty good, although it ain't cheap. AVG - the commercial version, not the old free one (that's still out there) was a little disappointing and has become bloatware, and McAfee takes over your machine when it needs to do a signature or engine update. Jury's still out on the "new" Microsoft Security Essentials but so far I really like what I see. Seems like somebody's gone for a slightly smaller footprint for a change. I suspect all of them will probably follow.
Personally and at the moment I'm running McAfee on one laptop, AVG and Symantec on workstations, and Microsoft Security Essentials on another laptop. Sophos on our servers but that wasn't really my choice. None of them is so bad at what it does that I'd toss it out of hand. YMMV.
I use avast-works very well for me. However, I agree w/ a previous post that one should use a combination of things (firewall, malware programs etc) to protect specific problems that may occur. I would never depend on an antivirus program to protect my computer against all types of threats.
Linux.
bookmark-o-rama
X5O!P%@AP[4\PZX54(P^)7CC)7}$EICAR-STANDARD-ANTIVIRUS-TEST-FILE!$H+H*~
On the flip side, I wouldn’t use a PC without Norton utilities in the Windows 3.1 days. They rocked back then, and were an essential part of having a smoothly running PC.
Oh yeah, before the Symantec buy Norton was must have stuff. I had it on machines pre-windows. Some NDOS and NCC and NCD just plain made computing easy (mmmm Norton Change Directory, man that a sweet tool).
I’m using Bitdefender and it seems to work ok. I seem to have a long startup and maybe it is because of that. But I don’t know enough about it. Running XP. Maybe someone out there knows for sure?
My anti-virus program is eScan.
Did you ever have Norton Desktop for 3.1? I loved it. It treated zip files like folders years before Windows got that ability.
Yeah I remember that one. Good stuff. Just makes what Symantec has done to the name even sadder.
Malwarebytes anti-malware.
It’s a warning to any developer who sells his software company to another company. They may just drag your baby and your name through the mud.
At least never give them the rights to use your name in perpetuity.
That's what I've been using lately.
It's interesting that it wasn't included in the eval.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.