Dufus McRue
|
| 12/13/2001 7:38:19 AM |
Not rated |
Norton or McAfee?
|
|
Tarique Abedin
|
| 12/13/2001 9:11:33 AM |
Not rated |
i'd go with norton cuz thats what i've used and its given me no problems what so ever.
|
|
Nikolay Blyumberg
|
| 12/13/2001 9:18:57 AM |
Not rated |
I second that, Norton is (in my eyes) the best. They try to please the customer a lot more than McAfee. For example, they had automatic update download feature like a year before McAfee. And their new virus definitions are released like every 4-7 days
|
|
Ammon Beckstrom
|
| 12/13/2001 10:14:02 AM |
Not rated |
I would say Norton, but evertime I run Visual Studio .NET Norton wants to attack it.
|
|
J B
|
| 12/13/2001 10:17:19 AM |
Not rated |
Yes, I noticed that problem too.... it thinks everything in VS.NET is a malicious script.....
|
|
Greg Orgill
|
| 12/13/2001 11:00:05 AM |
Avg. Rating: 1 by 1 Users |
I like Norton.
|
|
David Held
|
| 12/13/2001 11:36:52 AM |
Not rated |
I would agree with the Norton verdict as well. It has served me well, and only caused me grief once when I came upon a most malicious virus.
I have respect for the virus, however. It was very well designed, and quite creative in it's methedologies.
Basically, what the virus does is edit the registry so that all executables are run through the virus which is just an empty shell that does nothing. But the thing is, as soon as the virus installs itself, Nortan (or any other virus software that catches it) says "Oh no! A virus," and deletes it.
Which would normally be a good thing -- except that it is now impossible to execute a program because every time you try to run something it tries to run it through the no longer existing file and fails. To be able to fix the file associations requires being able to run a program which is quite difficult at this point in time.
The only way to correct it that I found was a little sneaky. I renamed regedit.exe to regedit.com which then ran fine and allowed me to eliminate the malicious entry. However, had the virus gone a step further and also associated itself with the .com file extension, I would have been in real trouble.
|
|
Anwar Haneef
|
| 12/13/2001 1:05:17 PM |
Not rated |
I like Norton too. (And of course there are work arounds around the 365 day free upgrades ;-) )
|
|
Calvin Gong
|
| 12/13/2001 1:45:32 PM |
Not rated |
another Norton fans. ^_^
But, hopefully they can put more effort on detecting trojans, I made a new trojan which is completely innocent to Norton Antivirus, even the 2002 version with updated definition, I doubt about their detecting ability. MaAfee even worse.
|
|
Ryan Felton
|
| 12/13/2001 1:49:56 PM |
Not rated |
I like Norton TOO... But what is very nice for computers without antivirus install :
http://housecall.antivirus.com/
By clicking on scan without registering it will ask you to download an Active X control and will scan your computer for virus.. It's very nice..
|
|
Justin McMurray
|
| 12/13/2001 2:16:43 PM |
Not rated |
I find it interesting that Norton agreed with the government to allow them to make a Trojan that Norton wouldn't detect.
|
|
Soceror .
|
| 12/13/2001 5:48:47 PM |
Not rated |
you DO realize there are thousands versions of Sub7 out there (so easily modified), that Norton doesnt detect... Norton only detect the original version (not the modified)
|
|
Jordan Jitzchaki
|
| 12/13/2001 5:59:59 PM |
Not rated |
So what would you say is the best virus scanner? To my knowledge, there isn't any virus software that is impermeable. Only a firewall would do the job, and then...
|
|
Simon Timms
|
| 12/13/2001 6:05:15 PM |
Not rated |
I've used notorn stuff since norton commander and i love it. personaly i don't use any antivirus software. I do most of my work in linux where it is pretty hard to get a virus and i do disk images ever few days so that i have a backup should something go really wrong... like that red hat 7.2 install, but we don't talk about that. A firewall should already be part of your system. I have a hardware one that seems pretty good but there are lots of good software ones too.
|
|
A. DoubleN
|
| 12/13/2001 8:56:45 PM |
Not rated |
Norton by far. The way it updates itself is awesome and in the past when I used McAfee, I had to install an evaluation copy of Norton in order to get rid of just about any virus I encountered. For me McAfee was able to find the virus, but only Norton was able to both find and fix them.
|
|
Matthew Nutz
|
| 12/19/2001 1:47:22 AM |
Not rated |
I used Norton no probs, tried McAfee, had to recopy my Win 98 files, cpu wouldn't even boot.
|
|
Shawn Li
|
| 12/19/2001 3:45:46 AM |
Not rated |
Have you heard of Dr. Solomon's Anti-Virus program? I was wondering where I can get updates for this program?
|
|
tom manula
|
| 12/19/2001 5:19:40 AM |
Avg. Rating: 1 by 2 Users |
Norton RULES!!!
|
|
richard peterson
|
| 12/19/2001 6:16:24 AM |
Avg. Rating: 1 by 1 Users |
norton by far
|
|
Ben Nourse
|
| 12/19/2001 12:00:10 PM |
Not rated |
I think it depends more on the user than the program, because I think the effectiveness of virus protection depends mostly on the frequency of definition updates. What I mean by this is that the companies produce definitions more often than the average user updates them, which means the program is uneffective regardless of who you bought it from.
Also, a lot of what I'm seeing is everyone recommending the one they use and have always used (usually whatever came bundled with their computer nowadays), whether they have a basis for an informed opinion or not. Which is fine, but I wouldn't base a decision on it.
|
|