Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.security_admin (
More info?)
I did not understand it either. When I get the time, I might try it again.
The version I tried was the trial version. Maybe it is not identical to the
paid version.As I remember it, I believe I tried KAV right after SP2 came
out and I recall they were having some kind of problem with XP SP2. I now
recall, I also installed the trial version on my daughter's college laptop
to clean it up (you will not believe all the spyware I found on it!) and
after the scan which ran "forever", I had to uninstall it so she could use
her laptop again. It was running like molasses with KAV installed. It too
was a speedy laptop.
I suspect it will not let me re-install the trial version again on my laptop
because it keeps track somewhere of the original installation date and only
allows it to run for 30 days from then. That's what happened the last time I
tried to re-install and try it. I'll see. Wish I could install the paid
version to see if it runs any better before paying for it.
--
Jeff Stevens
Email address deliberately false to avoid spam
jeff@stevens.com
Galen wrote:
> In news:u78t9G8aFHA.720@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl,
> Jeff <jeff@phony.com> had this to say:
>
> My reply is at the bottom of your sent message:
>
>> It was about 6 months ago. I tried it in my Pentium 4, 2.66 GHz
>> laptop with 512 RAM and XP home.
>
> That makes me wonder... I've been using KAV since, well, before it
> was KAV. It used to be AVP. (Anti-viral toolkit Pro) If you're
> already set on using one of the other AV applications and not
> willing/wanting to pay for the application then this is not important
> but the question begs to be asked. Did you have anything else doing
> real-time scanning at the same time? Was there a conflict with
> pre-existing software perhaps? Your box has statistics well enough so
> that it should have run KAV without a hitch. On a bad day I have my
> main PC set and running around 50 processes or so. KAV is one of them
> though I do not have it set to inspect outbound mail or self
> extracting archives as those would be scanned when they are opened.
> Hmm... The PC at the moment is not really too fast. It's a AMD 3200+
> w/2 GB RAM and XP Pro so it's not that fast at all really. It's
> currently using 2700 k of memory and 1000 k of memory as the service
> and process. Far less, for instance, than IE, Explorer, or even Yahoo.
>
> It's not that I'm trying to alter your opinion but rather that my
> opinion has always been that when it comes to security second best
> isn't really good enough unless, of course, price makes the best out
> of my league.
> Galen