I think you are a bit biased on this, Tim. :)
What i mean by not stable, is not able to find most virus
as this is what this product is for, not crashing
the system. From my previous post we have seen that...
Yes, I would give credit to Bill Larson, as a great software
marketer (his background) for saving MCAF from
bankrupt and marketed the software so aggressively and
so successfully. I wish I knew such a person was in charge
of MCAF as early as you did. But at the same time since
he pushed his people so hard this and last year to rush
the products out, they are not as good as you thought.
Both Eubanks and Larson have accused each other about
misleading marketing. I think Larson has done a much
better job "misleading" (if you want to call it) the
potential customers. That is what the marketing all about...
SYMC did rather poorly on this.
Here is an article about anti-virus product on NT. Pls See the
hard numbers.
(http://www.zdnet.com/wsources/content/960617/regrev4.html)
------------------------------------------
VirusScan For NT Takes A Nap
Joseph Moran
It's always a surprise when a virus
program--or any utility for that
matter--gives you more problems than
solutions. VirusScan 2.5 for Windows NT,
an update to McAfee's virus-detection tool
for Windows NT, is one of those: It's
neither highly reliable nor flexible. We
tested the newly shipping product.
VirusScan NT runs a native NT service,
but it doesn't let you perform background
scans at user-defined intervals--say, any
time your PC is idle. The program's
scheduling times are simple, such as
once a day. And you must have
administrative privileges to execute
complete scans, otherwise certain areas,
such as the master boot record, may be
off-limits. A competing product,
Symantec's Norton AntiVirus for Windows
NT, has the same restriction (see "NT
Gets Its First Shot at First Aid," Registry,
April 1996).
VirusScan integrates with the NT Event Viewer to record information about scan times and infected
files, but the information it logs is quite basic. For example, finding a single infected file or an
entire hard disk teeming with viruses generates the same "Infected files found" message.
We tested Virus-Scan NT on a Micron P-90 running Win-dows NT 3.51 with 48MB of RAM. We created a directory containing 14 viruses in .ZIP files, and VirusScan detected only six of them.
Norton AntiVirus, by contrast, found 13 of the viruses. Speed, however, is not an issue: VirusScan scanned our 1,478 local files in 59 seconds; Norton Anti-Virus took about 57 seconds.
VirusScan NT needs more flexibility in scheduling and logging virus scans and more accuracy in detecting viruses. You may want to try it, but you probably won't want to keep it.
About...
McAfee VirusScan NT
VirusScan NT isn't reliable or flexible enough to warrant serious consideration.
PROS: 30-day evaluation period.
CONS: Detected less than 50% of viruses on test machine.
PRODUCT: VirusScan 2.5 for Windows NT
COMPANY: McAfee Associates, Inc., Santa Clara, CA
PRICE: $49; two-year subscription, $60
AVAILABILITY: Now
UPGRADE: Free to subscribers to the Win 3.x or Win 95 version
OS SUPPORT: Win NT 3.51 |
