Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2005 15:08:55 +0100 From: Philip Nienhuis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [LIB] AVG Free Issues
David Chien wrote: > > Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 21:21:31 -0800 (PST) > From: David Chien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: [LIB] AVG Free Issues > > The very strangest thing I've seen smart, intelligent people do is to install > the 2nd best or worse ranked antivirus software into their computers -- then > feel safe that they're protected. > > People - wake up! Read http://www.virusbtn.com/vb100/archives/products.xml > and many other virus scanner test sites online. Thanks for the link. Be aware that this web site is just one of many sites reporting comparative virus scanner reviews. > If you simply look at the recent 2004 year results of AVG, you will see right > away that it has failed once (they test 4 times a year). Right away, you're > using a virus scanner that has a tested 25% failure rate, or only a 75% > protection rate (based on test results). > > It is like saying, I'll take that crappy EBOLA vaccination (there isn't any, > forget it if you get it), and I'll take my chances when I catch it. > > Hello? Wouldn't you want to know that you've taken the best vaccination on > the > planet? Wouldn't you want to know that each and every virus is caught on your > system? > > Please look at the other products for better virus protection -- here, > Symantec > AntiVirus is my choice because it runs well, has great reviews (commerically > and user), does the job, and has passed each and every test since 2000. (Yes, > the older 5.0 version failed in 1999, but let us assume that five years of > solid pass rates since then means they've got their stuff together nowadays - > products to improve over time, so older results should carry less weight.) > > You can examine the other product results and come to your own conclusions, > but > I would bet on Symantec Antivirus as the one that works. Sure. Yet the URL I posted yesterday points to another web site which has quite different conclusions. Other sites containing comparitive tests may show still different results. And PC magazines I'm subscribed to have published yet again different conclusions. So I'd say your bet is as good as mine. Nevertheless, I agree with Matt that sensible use of Internet resources is by far the most important aspect, much much more than the relative quality of a virus scanner. The last time I had a virus on my computer (Melissa) must have been > 10 yrs ago. From that time on I had a virus scanner loaded, I've never had virus alarms since. I do much the same as Matt: - be careful with attachments - keep Windows up-to-date. And in addition, I: - run AdAware & Spybot S&D regularly - have good firewalls running (I got a hardware w. NAT in the router, and then personal firewalls on al boxes) - delete spam and probable virus-loaded mails already at the server (using MailWasher) - don't use Internet Explorer, except for those stupid sites which only work with IE (I always send those web masters the W3C link to check their HTML) - have scrubbed out Outlook (+ -Expr), Netmeeting and other MS junk like MS-Java - removed Netbios from the TCP/IP protocol - use OS/2 or Linux if e.g., I have to search for extraneous drivers on suspect web sites. Philip
