Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Computer Learning -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: mr.mark who wrote (27258)	5/29/2002 11:47:45 AM
From: KC Jones	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 110655

My experience has been just the opposite mr. mark. AVG picked up viruses that NAV missed. I do however now run them both as well as a couple others. I also run ZA behind a router. I've been bitten once too often. KC

To: mr.mark who wrote (27258)	5/29/2002 12:06:00 PM
From: Gottfried	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 110655

mr mark, AVG free edition does have a scan scheduler and it works. I wonder what else pc mag got wrong? But I know nothing about its reliability in detecting all viruses. Gottfried

To: mr.mark who wrote (27258)	5/30/2002 7:22:43 AM
From: thecow	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 110655

pcmag.com reports in its personal antivirus review Thanks for posting the article mark. From my reading I would agree with pcmag that Norton is a superior product but I sure wouldn't agree with the pcmag statement that the free version isn't worth the price. At the time I switched to AVG I was running XP on a PII 450 and was trying to free up resources to run the XP hog a little better. I also got tired of spending so much time trying to figure out what went wrong with so many of Norton's downloads. It seemed like I spent way too much time on the Symantec site hunting down answers to why my SystemWorks (granted all the glitches weren't virus related) wasn't acting right. I would run both if I wasn't afraid of causing conflicts. I do cheat at times when I get a suspicious looking email. I forward it to work and read it there. tc :-) ps: Did I mention that I run Norton Corporate Edition at work?

To: mr.mark who wrote (27258)	5/30/2002 9:08:29 AM
From: Robert Graham	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 110655

I think going to a free site for anti-virus software is not prudent. Many like the concept of "free". It is like Christmas in June. Many people like Christmas in June. But "free" doesn't necessarily translate into "good". There is no financial motivation for a staff of people to keep the virus utility up-to-date. So it does not surprise me that the free utility missed some viruses. Also in order to avoid false positives, this requires allot of time consuming testing of the software. What is the motivation behind this time consuming and potentially costly effort to provide free anti-virus software? Should the computer user trust the result? If a PC user has no money, then I can see using this software is better than nothing. Or is it? I do not think it is a good principle to trust software from a source that you are not very familiar with for the very important security of your system, a source that is offering something for nothing. Particularly when it is not necessary. I do not believe in unnecessary risks. What do all of you think? Bob Graham