Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

CA vs. Symantec vs. Microsoft

Last response: in Windows 95/98/ME
Share
February 28, 2005 11:59:26 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

Which company is the best for protecting your computer? Which company has
the best anti-spyware, anti-virus, and firewall solution to protect the
individual, companies and the government? Please post your feedback and here
is an article from Forbes about the two companies.

http://www.forbes.com/home/ebusiness/2005/02/28/cx_ah_0...

More about : symantec microsoft

Anonymous
February 28, 2005 12:37:01 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

"Dan" wrote:

> Which company is the best for protecting your computer? Which company has
> the best anti-spyware, anti-virus, and firewall solution to protect the
> individual, companies and the government? Please post your feedback and here
> is an article from Forbes about the two companies.

My opinions as a individual user (I've tried many combinations of programs,
including everything mentioned in this email):

Antivirus: CA, followed (closely) by Trend Micro, followed (not so closely)
by Symantec. All will keep protect you from viruses, but the CA EZ antivirus
program will do it with the least cost in disk space and system overhead
(less bells and whistles too, which is a good thing). It is the closest
thing to having the benefits of an antivirus program without the costs in
other areas.

Anti-spyware: Combination of SP2 with default settings and with all updates
and patches downloaded and installed, Microsoft beta antispyware program, and
Ad Aware SE. If you are getting spyware even after using this combination,
it's your fault and you you need to learn computer security 101 because NO
antispyware program will help you. :) 

Best firewall: Windows firewall, followed by Symantec, followed by CA. If
you have good antivirus and antispyware software and you already do the
preventative things that stop crudware from getting on your machine in the
first place, the Windows firewall has the most seamless performance -- by far
-- of these alternatives. If, on the other hand, you are not confident in
your ability to keep trojans, worms, and spyware from getting on your machine
and then "phoning home," then Norton seems to be the most protective,
although the CA product, as I remember it, has slightly less wear and tear on
overall system overhead.

Ken
Anonymous
February 28, 2005 2:26:21 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

Symantec does not have an anti-virus suite that is not bloatware. May be
the same if they offer a anti-spyware system (???)

Microsoft AntiVirus Beta 1 is not bad. However, Microsoft has yet to
release an antivirus system for XP.

CA seems to have the best in antivirus and anti-spyware programs:

Etrust is very good in virus protection and removal.
PestPatrol seems to be a leader in spyware removal.

I do not use their firewall as of yet.

"Dan" <spamyou@user.nec> wrote in message
news:uNGR55aHFHA.3196@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> Which company is the best for protecting your computer? Which company has
> the best anti-spyware, anti-virus, and firewall solution to protect the
> individual, companies and the government? Please post your feedback and
> here
> is an article from Forbes about the two companies.
>
> http://www.forbes.com/home/ebusiness/2005/02/28/cx_ah_0...
>
>
Related resources
February 28, 2005 2:26:22 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

You do not use a firewall and so you must be playing with fire. Are you
saying you do not have a hardware firewall built into a LinkSyS router or a
software firewall such as ZA's PRO. version, CA EZARMOR Firewall or even
Microsoft own firewall in XP? Even if you are on a dial-up it is suggested
that you have a firewall according to PC World. Also, a layered approach to
security is best. Finally, I think Webroot's SpySweeper is the best at
removing spyware since Microsoft's antispyware was GIANT but it is still in
beta testing and Spysweeper has been able to remove spyware that was not
detected in Pest Patrol. Also, Pest Patrol had some false positives and that
is why I chose not to renew it when my subscription to Pest Patrol expired on
February 5, 2005. Have an awesome day and I hope you will consider the
security of a firewall to safeguard your system.

"Yves Leclerc" <yleclercNOSPAM@maysys.com> wrote in message
news:%23aGP%23IbHFHA.1476@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
: Symantec does not have an anti-virus suite that is not bloatware. May be
: the same if they offer a anti-spyware system (???)
:
: Microsoft AntiVirus Beta 1 is not bad. However, Microsoft has yet to
: release an antivirus system for XP.
:
: CA seems to have the best in antivirus and anti-spyware programs:
:
: Etrust is very good in virus protection and removal.
: PestPatrol seems to be a leader in spyware removal.
:
: I do not use their firewall as of yet.
:
: "Dan" <spamyou@user.nec> wrote in message
: news:uNGR55aHFHA.3196@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
: > Which company is the best for protecting your computer? Which company
has
: > the best anti-spyware, anti-virus, and firewall solution to protect the
: > individual, companies and the government? Please post your feedback and
: > here
: > is an article from Forbes about the two companies.
: >
: >
http://www.forbes.com/home/ebusiness/2005/02/28/cx_ah_0...
: >
: >
:
:
February 28, 2005 2:26:23 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

I think you misread his post. He said he does not use THEIR firewall, not
that he does not use A firewall......

"Dan" wrote:

> You do not use a firewall and so you must be playing with fire. Are you
> saying you do not have a hardware firewall built into a LinkSyS router or a
> software firewall such as ZA's PRO. version, CA EZARMOR Firewall or even
> Microsoft own firewall in XP? Even if you are on a dial-up it is suggested
> that you have a firewall according to PC World. Also, a layered approach to
> security is best. Finally, I think Webroot's SpySweeper is the best at
> removing spyware since Microsoft's antispyware was GIANT but it is still in
> beta testing and Spysweeper has been able to remove spyware that was not
> detected in Pest Patrol. Also, Pest Patrol had some false positives and that
> is why I chose not to renew it when my subscription to Pest Patrol expired on
> February 5, 2005. Have an awesome day and I hope you will consider the
> security of a firewall to safeguard your system.
>
> "Yves Leclerc" <yleclercNOSPAM@maysys.com> wrote in message
> news:%23aGP%23IbHFHA.1476@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> : Symantec does not have an anti-virus suite that is not bloatware. May be
> : the same if they offer a anti-spyware system (???)
> :
> : Microsoft AntiVirus Beta 1 is not bad. However, Microsoft has yet to
> : release an antivirus system for XP.
> :
> : CA seems to have the best in antivirus and anti-spyware programs:
> :
> : Etrust is very good in virus protection and removal.
> : PestPatrol seems to be a leader in spyware removal.
> :
> : I do not use their firewall as of yet.
> :
> : "Dan" <spamyou@user.nec> wrote in message
> : news:uNGR55aHFHA.3196@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> : > Which company is the best for protecting your computer? Which company
> has
> : > the best anti-spyware, anti-virus, and firewall solution to protect the
> : > individual, companies and the government? Please post your feedback and
> : > here
> : > is an article from Forbes about the two companies.
> : >
> : >
> http://www.forbes.com/home/ebusiness/2005/02/28/cx_ah_0...
> : >
> : >
> :
> :
>
>
>
Anonymous
February 28, 2005 2:26:23 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

"Dan" wrote:

> Finally, I think Webroot's SpySweeper is the best at
> removing spyware since Microsoft's antispyware was GIANT but it is still in
> beta testing and Spysweeper has been able to remove spyware that was not
> detected in Pest Patrol.

I gave up on Spysweeper months ago because it was finding too many false
positives. I suspect that virtually all third party antispyware will find
more false positives than Microsoft -- after all, they make their living by
convincing people, often wrongly and (I suspect) often on purpose, that some
harmless tracking cookie is a dangerous threat to their computer security.
Besides, I never download spyware in the first place, so none of the programs
I have ever used has ever found any legitimate spyware.

I use the Microsoft program only because it is so seamless with the rest of
XP (a virtue, I'm sure, of it being a Microsoft product rather than a third
party vendor product). If an antispyware program slowed down my machine even
a little, or interrupted me to tell me that an doubleclick.net cookie was
blocked from getting on my machine, I would stop using it, at least in real
time scan mode. [Note: I do block tracking cookies from getting on my
machine; it's just that I do it through IE directly rather than through an
antispyware program.]

Also, the Microsoft is a beta in name only (it is a slightly modified
version of the GIANT program), and even then Microsoft in the past has been
very conservative about releasing public betas (I have used many of them in
the past without any significant problems, including the beta version of SP2
for months before the public version came out).

Ken
February 28, 2005 2:26:24 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

I misread it. Thank you, Kim for the correction.

"Kim" <Kim@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:A24BB371-BD31-4B7A-A383-FAD8047F4AA1@microsoft.com...
: I think you misread his post. He said he does not use THEIR firewall, not
: that he does not use A firewall......
:
: "Dan" wrote:
:
: > You do not use a firewall and so you must be playing with fire. Are you
: > saying you do not have a hardware firewall built into a LinkSyS router or
a
: > software firewall such as ZA's PRO. version, CA EZARMOR Firewall or even
: > Microsoft own firewall in XP? Even if you are on a dial-up it is
suggested
: > that you have a firewall according to PC World. Also, a layered approach
to
: > security is best. Finally, I think Webroot's SpySweeper is the best at
: > removing spyware since Microsoft's antispyware was GIANT but it is still
in
: > beta testing and Spysweeper has been able to remove spyware that was not
: > detected in Pest Patrol. Also, Pest Patrol had some false positives and
that
: > is why I chose not to renew it when my subscription to Pest Patrol
expired on
: > February 5, 2005. Have an awesome day and I hope you will consider the
: > security of a firewall to safeguard your system.
: >
: > "Yves Leclerc" <yleclercNOSPAM@maysys.com> wrote in message
: > news:%23aGP%23IbHFHA.1476@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
: > : Symantec does not have an anti-virus suite that is not bloatware. May
be
: > : the same if they offer a anti-spyware system (???)
: > :
: > : Microsoft AntiVirus Beta 1 is not bad. However, Microsoft has yet to
: > : release an antivirus system for XP.
: > :
: > : CA seems to have the best in antivirus and anti-spyware programs:
: > :
: > : Etrust is very good in virus protection and
removal.
: > : PestPatrol seems to be a leader in spyware removal.
: > :
: > : I do not use their firewall as of yet.
: > :
: > : "Dan" <spamyou@user.nec> wrote in message
: > : news:uNGR55aHFHA.3196@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
: > : > Which company is the best for protecting your computer? Which
company
: > has
: > : > the best anti-spyware, anti-virus, and firewall solution to protect
the
: > : > individual, companies and the government? Please post your feedback
and
: > : > here
: > : > is an article from Forbes about the two companies.
: > : >
: > : >
: >
http://www.forbes.com/home/ebusiness/2005/02/28/cx_ah_0...
: > : >
: > : >
: > :
: > :
: >
: >
: >
Anonymous
February 28, 2005 2:56:17 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

I am using Zone Alarm Free behind a NAT router at home and a corporate
hardware firewall at my office.

As for anti-spyware systems, not everyone will catch every spywares out
there. As for Webroot, I do not like it! It is too much "integrated" and
pops up too often (is the standard setup). Microsoft's attempt shows
promise but we need to see when it gets out of "beta".


"Dan" <spamyou@user.nec> wrote in message
news:uy8uQPbHFHA.1528@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> You do not use a firewall and so you must be playing with fire. Are you
> saying you do not have a hardware firewall built into a LinkSyS router or
> a
> software firewall such as ZA's PRO. version, CA EZARMOR Firewall or even
> Microsoft own firewall in XP? Even if you are on a dial-up it is
> suggested
> that you have a firewall according to PC World. Also, a layered approach
> to
> security is best. Finally, I think Webroot's SpySweeper is the best at
> removing spyware since Microsoft's antispyware was GIANT but it is still
> in
> beta testing and Spysweeper has been able to remove spyware that was not
> detected in Pest Patrol. Also, Pest Patrol had some false positives and
> that
> is why I chose not to renew it when my subscription to Pest Patrol expired
> on
> February 5, 2005. Have an awesome day and I hope you will consider the
> security of a firewall to safeguard your system.
>
> "Yves Leclerc" <yleclercNOSPAM@maysys.com> wrote in message
> news:%23aGP%23IbHFHA.1476@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> : Symantec does not have an anti-virus suite that is not bloatware. May
> be
> : the same if they offer a anti-spyware system (???)
> :
> : Microsoft AntiVirus Beta 1 is not bad. However, Microsoft has yet to
> : release an antivirus system for XP.
> :
> : CA seems to have the best in antivirus and anti-spyware programs:
> :
> : Etrust is very good in virus protection and removal.
> : PestPatrol seems to be a leader in spyware removal.
> :
> : I do not use their firewall as of yet.
> :
> : "Dan" <spamyou@user.nec> wrote in message
> : news:uNGR55aHFHA.3196@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> : > Which company is the best for protecting your computer? Which company
> has
> : > the best anti-spyware, anti-virus, and firewall solution to protect
> the
> : > individual, companies and the government? Please post your feedback
> and
> : > here
> : > is an article from Forbes about the two companies.
> : >
> : >
> http://www.forbes.com/home/ebusiness/2005/02/28/cx_ah_0...
> : >
> : >
> :
> :
>
>
February 28, 2005 2:56:18 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

It depends how you configure Webroot. I have it configured so that it does
not annoy me. Exactly, the Microsoft antispyware does show promise but we
must all have patience while this Giant software is tested. I hope that
Microsoft can release antispyware for the cooperation and power
home-based/business-based system user on a LAN network that will be a for pay
product that will be easy to install and unistall on an XP system. I
dual-boot with 98SE and XP PRO. and use a customized boot.ini with a
customized registry and have customized DOS (Disk Operating System) for my
needs. I am disappointed that XP has a poor legacy substitute DOS shell
wheras 98SE has true MS-DOS but still lacks some DOS commands as PCR has
pointed out that were removed instead of being updated for more modern use.
BTW, does anyone know how to acquire a retail edition of MS-DOS 6.22 which I
think is the last full DOS version but if it is not then I want the last
complete MSDOS kit. The reason I want the full MSDOS kit is that I want to
do more power testing on DOS and need a complete DOS package for my needs. I
can then send my suggestions to Bill Gates and figure out the best way to
develop future Windows packages and also if it is at all feasible to have a
Classics Windows version in the future for older computers that can help
Microsoft solve some environmental problems for older computers and hopefully
stop or at least slow the trend towards Apple and Open-Source products. I
can setup my computer to have a tri-boot with MS-DOS 6.22, 98SE and XP PRO.
Thanks for your time and help.

"Yves Leclerc" <yleclercNOSPAM@maysys.com> wrote in message
news:%233WDtZbHFHA.4084@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
: I am using Zone Alarm Free behind a NAT router at home and a corporate
: hardware firewall at my office.
:
: As for anti-spyware systems, not everyone will catch every spywares out
: there. As for Webroot, I do not like it! It is too much "integrated" and
: pops up too often (is the standard setup). Microsoft's attempt shows
: promise but we need to see when it gets out of "beta".
:
:
: "Dan" <spamyou@user.nec> wrote in message
: news:uy8uQPbHFHA.1528@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
: > You do not use a firewall and so you must be playing with fire. Are you
: > saying you do not have a hardware firewall built into a LinkSyS router or
: > a
: > software firewall such as ZA's PRO. version, CA EZARMOR Firewall or even
: > Microsoft own firewall in XP? Even if you are on a dial-up it is
: > suggested
: > that you have a firewall according to PC World. Also, a layered approach
: > to
: > security is best. Finally, I think Webroot's SpySweeper is the best at
: > removing spyware since Microsoft's antispyware was GIANT but it is still
: > in
: > beta testing and Spysweeper has been able to remove spyware that was not
: > detected in Pest Patrol. Also, Pest Patrol had some false positives and
: > that
: > is why I chose not to renew it when my subscription to Pest Patrol
expired
: > on
: > February 5, 2005. Have an awesome day and I hope you will consider the
: > security of a firewall to safeguard your system.
: >
: > "Yves Leclerc" <yleclercNOSPAM@maysys.com> wrote in message
: > news:%23aGP%23IbHFHA.1476@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
: > : Symantec does not have an anti-virus suite that is not bloatware. May
: > be
: > : the same if they offer a anti-spyware system (???)
: > :
: > : Microsoft AntiVirus Beta 1 is not bad. However, Microsoft has yet to
: > : release an antivirus system for XP.
: > :
: > : CA seems to have the best in antivirus and anti-spyware programs:
: > :
: > : Etrust is very good in virus protection and
removal.
: > : PestPatrol seems to be a leader in spyware removal.
: > :
: > : I do not use their firewall as of yet.
: > :
: > : "Dan" <spamyou@user.nec> wrote in message
: > : news:uNGR55aHFHA.3196@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
: > : > Which company is the best for protecting your computer? Which
company
: > has
: > : > the best anti-spyware, anti-virus, and firewall solution to protect
: > the
: > : > individual, companies and the government? Please post your feedback
: > and
: > : > here
: > : > is an article from Forbes about the two companies.
: > : >
: > : >
: >
http://www.forbes.com/home/ebusiness/2005/02/28/cx_ah_0...
: > : >
: > : >
: > :
: > :
: >
: >
:
:
Anonymous
February 28, 2005 3:10:44 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

In news:uNGR55aHFHA.3196@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl,
Dan <spamyou@user.nec> typed:

> Which company is the best for protecting your computer? Which
> company has the best anti-spyware, anti-virus, and firewall
> solution
> to protect the individual, companies and the government?


In my view, the question is irrelevant, for several reasons.
First, this should be three separate questions (anti-spyware,
anti-virus, and firewall); there's no reason to assume that the
company which makes the best product in one of these categories
necessarily makes the best product in any of the others.

It also makes no sense to restrict the choices as to which is
best to these three companies. There are many other vendors in
these arenas, and many of them make excellent products.

Finally, when it comes to anti-spyware software, no single
product does a good enough job, and you should use multiple
products. Read http://spywarewarrior.com/asw-features.htm
It states "as testing with these anti-spyware applications has

demonstrated, no single anti-spyware application will remove

everything. Therefore, users are advised to install and use at
least

two anti-spyware applications."


--
Ken Blake - Microsoft MVP Windows: Shell/User
Please reply to the newsgroup
Anonymous
February 28, 2005 3:53:50 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

Dan

We are moving away from DOS.. those of us that remember using MS-DOS look
back fondly, but have no particular desire to return.. many of the machines
that relied on DOS are long gone.. some buried, others crushed.. the ones
that do survive do not have eternal life.. it is time to move on..

--
Mike Hall
MVP - Windows Shell/user

http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm





"Dan" <spamyou@user.nec> wrote in message
news:%23aLZTobHFHA.1476@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> It depends how you configure Webroot. I have it configured so that it
> does
> not annoy me. Exactly, the Microsoft antispyware does show promise but we
> must all have patience while this Giant software is tested. I hope that
> Microsoft can release antispyware for the cooperation and power
> home-based/business-based system user on a LAN network that will be a for
> pay
> product that will be easy to install and unistall on an XP system. I
> dual-boot with 98SE and XP PRO. and use a customized boot.ini with a
> customized registry and have customized DOS (Disk Operating System) for my
> needs. I am disappointed that XP has a poor legacy substitute DOS shell
> wheras 98SE has true MS-DOS but still lacks some DOS commands as PCR has
> pointed out that were removed instead of being updated for more modern
> use.
> BTW, does anyone know how to acquire a retail edition of MS-DOS 6.22 which
> I
> think is the last full DOS version but if it is not then I want the last
> complete MSDOS kit. The reason I want the full MSDOS kit is that I want
> to
> do more power testing on DOS and need a complete DOS package for my needs.
> I
> can then send my suggestions to Bill Gates and figure out the best way to
> develop future Windows packages and also if it is at all feasible to have
> a
> Classics Windows version in the future for older computers that can help
> Microsoft solve some environmental problems for older computers and
> hopefully
> stop or at least slow the trend towards Apple and Open-Source products. I
> can setup my computer to have a tri-boot with MS-DOS 6.22, 98SE and XP
> PRO.
> Thanks for your time and help.
>
> "Yves Leclerc" <yleclercNOSPAM@maysys.com> wrote in message
> news:%233WDtZbHFHA.4084@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> : I am using Zone Alarm Free behind a NAT router at home and a corporate
> : hardware firewall at my office.
> :
> : As for anti-spyware systems, not everyone will catch every spywares out
> : there. As for Webroot, I do not like it! It is too much "integrated"
> and
> : pops up too often (is the standard setup). Microsoft's attempt shows
> : promise but we need to see when it gets out of "beta".
> :
> :
> : "Dan" <spamyou@user.nec> wrote in message
> : news:uy8uQPbHFHA.1528@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> : > You do not use a firewall and so you must be playing with fire. Are
> you
> : > saying you do not have a hardware firewall built into a LinkSyS router
> or
> : > a
> : > software firewall such as ZA's PRO. version, CA EZARMOR Firewall or
> even
> : > Microsoft own firewall in XP? Even if you are on a dial-up it is
> : > suggested
> : > that you have a firewall according to PC World. Also, a layered
> approach
> : > to
> : > security is best. Finally, I think Webroot's SpySweeper is the best
> at
> : > removing spyware since Microsoft's antispyware was GIANT but it is
> still
> : > in
> : > beta testing and Spysweeper has been able to remove spyware that was
> not
> : > detected in Pest Patrol. Also, Pest Patrol had some false positives
> and
> : > that
> : > is why I chose not to renew it when my subscription to Pest Patrol
> expired
> : > on
> : > February 5, 2005. Have an awesome day and I hope you will consider
> the
> : > security of a firewall to safeguard your system.
> : >
> : > "Yves Leclerc" <yleclercNOSPAM@maysys.com> wrote in message
> : > news:%23aGP%23IbHFHA.1476@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> : > : Symantec does not have an anti-virus suite that is not bloatware.
> May
> : > be
> : > : the same if they offer a anti-spyware system (???)
> : > :
> : > : Microsoft AntiVirus Beta 1 is not bad. However, Microsoft has yet
> to
> : > : release an antivirus system for XP.
> : > :
> : > : CA seems to have the best in antivirus and anti-spyware programs:
> : > :
> : > : Etrust is very good in virus protection and
> removal.
> : > : PestPatrol seems to be a leader in spyware
> removal.
> : > :
> : > : I do not use their firewall as of yet.
> : > :
> : > : "Dan" <spamyou@user.nec> wrote in message
> : > : news:uNGR55aHFHA.3196@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> : > : > Which company is the best for protecting your computer? Which
> company
> : > has
> : > : > the best anti-spyware, anti-virus, and firewall solution to
> protect
> : > the
> : > : > individual, companies and the government? Please post your
> feedback
> : > and
> : > : > here
> : > : > is an article from Forbes about the two companies.
> : > : >
> : > : >
> : >
> http://www.forbes.com/home/ebusiness/2005/02/28/cx_ah_0...
> : > : >
> : > : >
> : > :
> : > :
> : >
> : >
> :
> :
>
>
Anonymous
February 28, 2005 4:17:03 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

"Ken Blake" wrote:

> In my view, the question is irrelevant, for several reasons.
> First, this should be three separate questions (anti-spyware,
> anti-virus, and firewall); there's no reason to assume that the
> company which makes the best product in one of these categories
> necessarily makes the best product in any of the others.

I'm not so sure. In my experience, when you use separate vendors for
separate interrelated software functions (antivirus, spyware, and firewall),
you are asking for trouble. I think you are better off sticking to one
vendor, or two vendors if the first vendor is Microsoft (e.g. you use Windows
firewall or the Microsoft antispyware program). This may be an area where
the whole is better than the sum of the parts. I have tried it both ways,
and have had slightly better results (from a performance and stability
perspective) when using one vendor rather than several.

> It also makes no sense to restrict the choices as to which is
> best to these three companies. There are many other vendors in
> these arenas, and many of them make excellent products.

Right, e.g. Trend Micro.

> Finally, when it comes to anti-spyware software, no single
> product does a good enough job, and you should use multiple
> products. Read http://spywarewarrior.com/asw-features.htm
> It states "as testing with these anti-spyware applications has
> demonstrated, no single anti-spyware application will remove
> everything. Therefore, users are advised to install and use at
> least two anti-spyware applications."

Notwithstanding what I said above, I fully agree with this last point. I
personally use the Microsoft antispyware program (after trying and rejecting
many others) and Ad Aware SE as my "second opinion" software.

Ken
Anonymous
February 28, 2005 4:21:02 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

Second try:

"Ken Blake" wrote:

> In my view, the question is irrelevant, for several reasons.
> First, this should be three separate questions (anti-spyware,
> anti-virus, and firewall); there's no reason to assume that the
> company which makes the best product in one of these categories
> necessarily makes the best product in any of the others.

In my experience, when you mix up different vendors for interrelated or
interacting software (antivirus, antispyware, firewall), you are asking for
trouble even if, standing alone, any one product can be shown to be better
than the others. I have had better results sticking to one vendor. This is
an area where the whole may be greater than the sum of the parts.

> It also makes no sense to restrict the choices as to which is
> best to these three companies. There are many other vendors in
> these arenas, and many of them make excellent products.

Right, e.g. Trend Micro.

> Finally, when it comes to anti-spyware software, no single
> product does a good enough job, and you should use multiple
> products. Read http://spywarewarrior.com/asw-features.htm
> It states "as testing with these anti-spyware applications has
> demonstrated, no single anti-spyware application will remove
> everything. Therefore, users are advised to install and use at
> least two anti-spyware applications."

Notwithstanding what I said above, I agree completely. I personally use Ad
Aware SE in conjunction with the Microsoft antispyware product.

Ken
Anonymous
February 28, 2005 6:52:02 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

In news:F5144A5D-8F21-4F54-B465-5657621AE4FF@microsoft.com,
Ken Gardner <KenGardner@discussions.microsoft.com> typed:

> "Ken Blake" wrote:
>
>> In my view, the question is irrelevant, for several reasons.
>> First, this should be three separate questions (anti-spyware,
>> anti-virus, and firewall); there's no reason to assume that
>> the
>> company which makes the best product in one of these
>> categories
>> necessarily makes the best product in any of the others.
>
> I'm not so sure. In my experience, when you use separate
> vendors for
> separate interrelated software functions (antivirus, spyware,
> and
> firewall), you are asking for trouble.


I don't think that these functions are really interrelated, and
that hasn't been my experience at all. I use one company's
products for anti-virus, a second for a firewall, and six others
for anti-spyware without any problems at all. That's on both of
my machines here, as well as on the machines of numbers of others
to whom I've recommended the same combinations.

--
Ken Blake - Microsoft MVP Windows: Shell/User
Please reply to the newsgroup


> I think you are better off
> sticking to one vendor, or two vendors if the first vendor is
> Microsoft (e.g. you use Windows firewall or the Microsoft
> antispyware
> program). This may be an area where the whole is better than
> the
> sum of the parts. I have tried it both ways, and have had
> slightly
> better results (from a performance and stability perspective)
> when
> using one vendor rather than several.
>
>> It also makes no sense to restrict the choices as to which is
>> best to these three companies. There are many other vendors in
>> these arenas, and many of them make excellent products.
>
> Right, e.g. Trend Micro.
>
>> Finally, when it comes to anti-spyware software, no single
>> product does a good enough job, and you should use multiple
>> products. Read http://spywarewarrior.com/asw-features.htm
>> It states "as testing with these anti-spyware applications has
>> demonstrated, no single anti-spyware application will remove
>> everything. Therefore, users are advised to install and use at
>> least two anti-spyware applications."
>
> Notwithstanding what I said above, I fully agree with this last
> point. I personally use the Microsoft antispyware program
> (after
> trying and rejecting many others) and Ad Aware SE as my "second
> opinion" software.
>
> Ken
Anonymous
February 28, 2005 8:50:18 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

My personal favorite A/V for home use is AVG from Grisoft. It is not a
resource hog and none of the systems that I've seen it loaded on have had
any problems with it or have gotten nailed. BTW, the basic non-networked,
home version is free. You can purchase the Pro version (which gets you tech
support) for either 29.95 for 1 year or 39.95 for two years. I DO NOT like
Symantec any more. There software takes too much to run and after the
screwing I got the last time I renewed (they changed the Small Business
version where it does not protect my Exchange server andy more). I will be
changing my biggest clients away from them this year. Probabaly go with AVGs
corporate version or Panda.

For spyware at home I have been using Spysweeper since it cleans much more
than the (very good) free versions that I had been running. It is an
annoying program but I have not found a better one yet.

I like Zone Alarm for firewall.

Aaron

All of the
"Dan" <spamyou@user.nec> wrote in message
news:uNGR55aHFHA.3196@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> Which company is the best for protecting your computer? Which company has
> the best anti-spyware, anti-virus, and firewall solution to protect the
> individual, companies and the government? Please post your feedback and
here
> is an article from Forbes about the two companies.
>
>
http://www.forbes.com/home/ebusiness/2005/02/28/cx_ah_0...
>
>
February 28, 2005 9:34:40 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

Dan wrote:
> Which company is the best for protecting your computer? Which company has
> the best anti-spyware, anti-virus, and firewall solution to protect the
> individual, companies and the government? Please post your feedback and here
> is an article from Forbes about the two companies.
>
> http://www.forbes.com/home/ebusiness/2005/02/28/cx_ah_0...
>
>
I do not like symantec, the only thing I use is Ghost and Partition
magic, but everything else they make is over sized and like a virus in
itself.

For protection, I prefer to use Avast Virus checker and sygate Firewall.
both are free and works well.
These security suits is just too big and slows down the computer.
Anonymous
February 28, 2005 9:34:41 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

"Ad" wrote:

> I do not like symantec, the only thing I use is Ghost and Partition
> magic, but everything else they make is over sized and like a virus in
> itself.

I fully agree. I used to consider Norton as essential back in the days when
Norton -- the actual human being, not just the name of the software -- was
involved in developing the software. That would be back in the days of
Windows 9x. Back then the software was lean and mean and could do things
that the built-in utilities couldn't do that were also pretty much essential
to overall system stability and performance. Today the antivirus and
software It still does what it is supposed to do, but now not nearly so
leanly or meanly. Systemworks is totally unnecessary and actually is a drag
on the system. And if you decide to uninstall most Symantec software,
sometimes the quickest and easiest way is a clean install of XP (I'm not
joking).

Bottom line: Symantec software is still fine for most purposes, but if you
install it, you are essentially stuck with it for life, or until your next
clean install of Windows XP. This can be very annoying if something
different or better comes along that you want to try.

Ken
Anonymous
February 28, 2005 9:34:42 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

Hi Ken - All too true - in addition, the non-commercial versions of Symantec
software are notorious for interfering with other software, particularly
installs and very particularly system software of all kinds. (The
commercial stuff, by contrast, has quite a good reputation, FWIW.) I don't
allow it on any of my machines (except for testing on my "sandbox" after
which I remove it using TotalUninstall), and I strongly counsel my clients
not to put it on their machines or to replace it if it's already there.

--
Please respond in the same thread.
Regards, Jim Byrd, MS-MVP



In news:C3735BBD-84FC-4F9B-BACE-72F92F18609B@microsoft.com,
Ken Gardner <KenGardner@discussions.microsoft.com> typed:
> "Ad" wrote:
>
>> I do not like symantec, the only thing I use is Ghost and Partition
>> magic, but everything else they make is over sized and like a virus
>> in itself.
>
> I fully agree. I used to consider Norton as essential back in the
> days when Norton -- the actual human being, not just the name of the
> software -- was involved in developing the software. That would be
> back in the days of Windows 9x. Back then the software was lean and
> mean and could do things that the built-in utilities couldn't do that
> were also pretty much essential to overall system stability and
> performance. Today the antivirus and software It still does what it
> is supposed to do, but now not nearly so leanly or meanly.
> Systemworks is totally unnecessary and actually is a drag on the
> system. And if you decide to uninstall most Symantec software,
> sometimes the quickest and easiest way is a clean install of XP (I'm
> not joking).
>
> Bottom line: Symantec software is still fine for most purposes, but
> if you install it, you are essentially stuck with it for life, or
> until your next clean install of Windows XP. This can be very
> annoying if something different or better comes along that you want
> to try.
>
> Ken
Anonymous
February 28, 2005 9:34:43 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

"Jim Byrd" wrote:

> Hi Ken - All too true - in addition, the non-commercial versions of Symantec
> software are notorious for interfering with other software, particularly
> installs and very particularly system software of all kinds. (The
> commercial stuff, by contrast, has quite a good reputation, FWIW.) I don't
> allow it on any of my machines (except for testing on my "sandbox" after
> which I remove it using TotalUninstall), and I strongly counsel my clients
> not to put it on their machines or to replace it if it's already there.

I think you put your finger on the problem that I have with Symantec
software today. Instead of complementing the OS by seamlessly adding
functionality, it literally attempts to modify -- or take over the OS and
your web browser (e.g. NIS and Systemworks) -- to operate more the way
Symantec thinks it should operate. I suppose that that's just fine for the
"native XP" or Microsoft haters in the audience, but it isn't fine with me.
By contrast, the CA software is the way Norton software used to be -- lean
and mean, and butt-ugly to look at, too. :) 

Ken
Anonymous
February 28, 2005 9:56:47 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 08:59:26 -0700, Dan wrote:

> Which company is the best for protecting your computer? Which company has
> the best anti-spyware, anti-virus, and firewall solution to protect the
> individual, companies and the government? Please post your feedback and here
> is an article from Forbes about the two companies.

We install commercial systems for companies all over the USA and have used
Symantec Corporate Edition for a very long time. In all that time not one
machine has become infected with any virus. I've seen other companies
running CA and McAfee and they have been compromised. To be fair, I've
seen other companies that relied solely on AV as their security means be
compromised no matter what product they use.

I stand with Symantec Corporate Edition AV software (not the Norton
product) and then use other vendors products for other needs. I do not run
"anti-spyware" products in real-time on any users computers - the firewall
setup at the border takes care of those types of things.

--
spam999free@rrohio.com
remove 999 in order to email me
Anonymous
February 28, 2005 11:17:35 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

<yawn>

Dan wrote:
> Which company is the best for protecting your computer? Which company has
> the best anti-spyware, anti-virus, and firewall solution to protect the
> individual, companies and the government? Please post your feedback and
> here is an article from Forbes about the two companies.
>
> http://www.forbes.com/home/ebusiness/2005/02/28/cx_ah_0...
Anonymous
March 1, 2005 1:17:01 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

For a year or more I recommended Norton to my customers.
Allot of that decision was because I used it myself. I had used
other Anti-Virus products (Excluding McAfee) and just settled
on Nav and made the mistake of starting to use NIS.
Starting around Summer of 2004, I started running into all kinds
of errant installs/upgrades and subscription issues. Some issues
took hours and hours to resolve or get a workaround in place.
I actually spent 5 weeks testing all the Anti-Virus & Firewall
products I could. After testing, I finally decided on eTrust 7.0
for Anti-Virus and Zone Alarm Free for the Firewall program.
I'm now strongly against almost all of Symantec's products.
I actually spoke to some of their marketing folks about the
issues with Bloatware, Subscription pricing and the way the
company "Hides" by removing customer forums and only having
paid Telephone support. Just like you would image, the response
was one of "Who Cares, Go Away". After that, I'm done with
Symantec and would advise anyone who uses their software to
look for alternate/leaner/cheaper solutions.
What's funny is the CEO's commentary that Symantec isn't
afraid of Microsoft and will beat them in the marketplace. Unless
he gets some real idea of their consumer problems, that comment
will likely not come to pass.

"Ken Gardner" <KenGardner@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:423EE7A9-8FB0-4A8F-8C1B-C18035CFF65C@microsoft.com...
> Second try:
>
> "Ken Blake" wrote:
>
>> In my view, the question is irrelevant, for several reasons.
>> First, this should be three separate questions (anti-spyware,
>> anti-virus, and firewall); there's no reason to assume that the
>> company which makes the best product in one of these categories
>> necessarily makes the best product in any of the others.
>
> In my experience, when you mix up different vendors for interrelated or
> interacting software (antivirus, antispyware, firewall), you are asking
> for
> trouble even if, standing alone, any one product can be shown to be better
> than the others. I have had better results sticking to one vendor. This
> is
> an area where the whole may be greater than the sum of the parts.
>
>> It also makes no sense to restrict the choices as to which is
>> best to these three companies. There are many other vendors in
>> these arenas, and many of them make excellent products.
>
> Right, e.g. Trend Micro.
>
>> Finally, when it comes to anti-spyware software, no single
>> product does a good enough job, and you should use multiple
>> products. Read http://spywarewarrior.com/asw-features.htm
>> It states "as testing with these anti-spyware applications has
> > demonstrated, no single anti-spyware application will remove
>> everything. Therefore, users are advised to install and use at
>> least two anti-spyware applications."
>
> Notwithstanding what I said above, I agree completely. I personally use
> Ad
> Aware SE in conjunction with the Microsoft antispyware product.
>
> Ken
>
March 1, 2005 1:17:02 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

McCarty,

I couldn't agree more with you comments and recommendations. I've used Ca
anti-virus since the days it was free and have used ZoneAlarm free for the
last 3-4 years. Here's my slate of "protection" software that has served me
well, is either free or of minimal cost expensive, and does not interfere
with the basic operation of my computer or with each other:

CA my-eTrust V 7.0
ZoneAlarm, free version
AdAware v 1.05
SpyBot Search and Destroy
SpywareBlaster
SpywareGuard
Pop-Up Stopper, free version

I run CWShredder on occasion but since it's never fouind a problem, I
probably don't need it. I also ran a HOSTS manager for awhile but found it
to unnecessarily limit some of my web surfing so I no longer use it.

The key to a clean machine is to use good protection, update it (and your
OS) regularly and show some restraint in what you open yourself up to during
your surfing. My 98SE, P11, 300 MHZ machine is solid as a rock. I average
about one BSOD a month and then only when I try to run a week or so without
rebooting.

"R. McCarty" <PcEngWork-NoSpam_@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:xLMUd.2446$wy3.867@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> For a year or more I recommended Norton to my customers.
> Allot of that decision was because I used it myself. I had used
> other Anti-Virus products (Excluding McAfee) and just settled
> on Nav and made the mistake of starting to use NIS.
> Starting around Summer of 2004, I started running into all kinds
> of errant installs/upgrades and subscription issues. Some issues
> took hours and hours to resolve or get a workaround in place.
> I actually spent 5 weeks testing all the Anti-Virus & Firewall
> products I could. After testing, I finally decided on eTrust 7.0
> for Anti-Virus and Zone Alarm Free for the Firewall program.
> I'm now strongly against almost all of Symantec's products.
> I actually spoke to some of their marketing folks about the
> issues with Bloatware, Subscription pricing and the way the
> company "Hides" by removing customer forums and only having
> paid Telephone support. Just like you would image, the response
> was one of "Who Cares, Go Away". After that, I'm done with
> Symantec and would advise anyone who uses their software to
> look for alternate/leaner/cheaper solutions.
> What's funny is the CEO's commentary that Symantec isn't
> afraid of Microsoft and will beat them in the marketplace. Unless
> he gets some real idea of their consumer problems, that comment
> will likely not come to pass.
>
> "Ken Gardner" <KenGardner@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:423EE7A9-8FB0-4A8F-8C1B-C18035CFF65C@microsoft.com...
> > Second try:
> >
> > "Ken Blake" wrote:
> >
> >> In my view, the question is irrelevant, for several reasons.
> >> First, this should be three separate questions (anti-spyware,
> >> anti-virus, and firewall); there's no reason to assume that the
> >> company which makes the best product in one of these categories
> >> necessarily makes the best product in any of the others.
> >
> > In my experience, when you mix up different vendors for interrelated or
> > interacting software (antivirus, antispyware, firewall), you are asking
> > for
> > trouble even if, standing alone, any one product can be shown to be
better
> > than the others. I have had better results sticking to one vendor.
This
> > is
> > an area where the whole may be greater than the sum of the parts.
> >
> >> It also makes no sense to restrict the choices as to which is
> >> best to these three companies. There are many other vendors in
> >> these arenas, and many of them make excellent products.
> >
> > Right, e.g. Trend Micro.
> >
> >> Finally, when it comes to anti-spyware software, no single
> >> product does a good enough job, and you should use multiple
> >> products. Read http://spywarewarrior.com/asw-features.htm
> >> It states "as testing with these anti-spyware applications has
> > > demonstrated, no single anti-spyware application will remove
> >> everything. Therefore, users are advised to install and use at
> >> least two anti-spyware applications."
> >
> > Notwithstanding what I said above, I agree completely. I personally use
> > Ad
> > Aware SE in conjunction with the Microsoft antispyware product.
> >
> > Ken
> >
>
>
Anonymous
March 1, 2005 1:17:03 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

"bobster" <fauxie@bogus.net> wrote in message
news:o c8duBfHFHA.1176@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>
> Here's my slate of "protection" software that has served me
> well, is either free or of minimal cost expensive, and does not interfere
> with the basic operation of my computer or with each other:
>
> CA my-eTrust V 7.0
> ZoneAlarm, free version
> AdAware v 1.05
> SpyBot Search and Destroy
> SpywareBlaster
> SpywareGuard
> Pop-Up Stopper, free version
>
> I run CWShredder on occasion but since it's never fouind a problem, I
> probably don't need it. I also ran a HOSTS manager for awhile but found
it
> to unnecessarily limit some of my web surfing so I no longer use it.
>
> The key to a clean machine is to use good protection, update it (and your
> OS) regularly and show some restraint in what you open yourself up to
during
> your surfing. My 98SE, P11, 300 MHZ machine is solid as a rock. I
average
> about one BSOD a month and then only when I try to run a week or so
without
> rebooting.

Overall, a scathing indictment of an operating system, isn't it?.

Microsoft could offer me the Windows source code,
free, with permission to market it as I see fit
and I would turn the offer down on principle.

I can only hope that Microsoft will see the light,
stop wasting valuable resources patching quicksand,
junk their current obsolete WinTel architecture
and develop products worthy of the 21st century
in which the rest of us lives.

Before the people already working on such products
beat them to it, although they may already be too late.

Watching Microsoft at work is like watching an elephant die.
It is slow. It is stubborn. It is painful. It is inevitably fatal.
Anonymous
March 1, 2005 2:25:02 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

"Ken Blake" wrote:

> > I'm not so sure. In my experience, when you use separate
> > vendors for separate interrelated software functions (antivirus, spyware,
> > and firewall), you are asking for trouble.

> I don't think that these functions are really interrelated, and
> that hasn't been my experience at all. I use one company's
> products for anti-virus, a second for a firewall, and six others
> for anti-spyware without any problems at all. That's on both of
> my machines here, as well as on the machines of numbers of others
> to whom I've recommended the same combinations.

Actually, I'm having second thoughts about my original comment, even though
it is still accurate as applied to me. Most of the people who are having
recent trouble are people who install "security suites" such as Norton
Internet Security. And in the interest of full disclosure, I now use
Microsoft and Lavasoft for antispyware, EZ Trust for antivirus, and the
Windows firewall. :) 

Ken
Anonymous
March 1, 2005 3:31:01 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

Dan seems determined to force those in the Win98 group to participate in his WinXP
group discussions, disregarding the fact that if those in the 98 groups wanted to
participate in the XP groups, they would go there on their own.
--
Glen Ventura, MS MVP Shell/User, A+
http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm

"PA Bear" <PABearMVP@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:eEIu1xfHFHA.2132@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> <yawn>
>
> Dan wrote:
> > Which company is the best for protecting your computer? Which company has
> > the best anti-spyware, anti-virus, and firewall solution to protect the
> > individual, companies and the government? Please post your feedback and
> > here is an article from Forbes about the two companies.
> >
> > http://www.forbes.com/home/ebusiness/2005/02/28/cx_ah_0...
>
Anonymous
March 1, 2005 3:31:02 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

If that's the case, it's pretty irresponsible, on his part.

glee wrote:
> Dan seems determined to force those in the Win98 group to participate in
his
> WinXP group discussions, disregarding the fact that if those in the 98
groups
> wanted to participate in the XP groups, they would go there on their own.
> --
> Glen Ventura, MS MVP Shell/User, A+
> http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
>
> "PA Bear" <PABearMVP@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:eEIu1xfHFHA.2132@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>> <yawn>
>>
>> Dan wrote:
>>> Which company is the best for protecting your computer? Which company
>>> has the best anti-spyware, anti-virus, and firewall solution to protect
the
>>> individual, companies and the government? Please post your feedback and
>>> here is an article from Forbes about the two companies.
>>>
>>>
http://www.forbes.com/home/ebusiness/2005/02/28/cx_ah_0...
March 1, 2005 3:33:32 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

Ken Gardner wrote:

>
> I fully agree. I used to consider Norton as essential back in the days when
> Norton -- the actual human being, not just the name of the software -- was
> involved in developing the software. That would be back in the days of
> Windows 9x. Back then the software was lean and mean and could do things

that was a while back, I got a package here to do with Nroton and it got
5 and a quater inch disks with it.


> that the built-in utilities couldn't do that were also pretty much essential
> to overall system stability and performance. Today the antivirus and
> software It still does what it is supposed to do, but now not nearly so
> leanly or meanly. Systemworks is totally unnecessary and actually is a drag
> on the system. And if you decide to uninstall most Symantec software,
> sometimes the quickest and easiest way is a clean install of XP (I'm not
> joking).
>

You are correct, A mate of mine had a new computer a couple of weeks
ago and I went though his old hard drive, just to make sure we have not
missed any files, I found parts of Norton which have been uninstalled
about 3 years ago.


> Bottom line: Symantec software is still fine for most purposes, but if you
> install it, you are essentially stuck with it for life, or until your next
> clean install of Windows XP. This can be very annoying if something
> different or better comes along that you want to try.
>

Yep, I decided after the last time I used Norton, about 2 years back,
never to use a all in once security suit again.
March 1, 2005 4:02:21 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

I understand your point, Glen. I thought a spirited debate would be nice but
I can see that you and Gary do not care for it much.

"glee" <glee29@spamindspring.com> wrote in message
news:o cZeM$hHFHA.1096@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
: Dan seems determined to force those in the Win98 group to participate in
his WinXP
: group discussions, disregarding the fact that if those in the 98 groups
wanted to
: participate in the XP groups, they would go there on their own.
: --
: Glen Ventura, MS MVP Shell/User, A+
: http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
:
: "PA Bear" <PABearMVP@gmail.com> wrote in message
: news:eEIu1xfHFHA.2132@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
: > <yawn>
: >
: > Dan wrote:
: > > Which company is the best for protecting your computer? Which company
has
: > > the best anti-spyware, anti-virus, and firewall solution to protect the
: > > individual, companies and the government? Please post your feedback
and
: > > here is an article from Forbes about the two companies.
: > >
: > >
http://www.forbes.com/home/ebusiness/2005/02/28/cx_ah_0...
: >
:
Anonymous
March 1, 2005 4:25:04 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

Not sure where you've been, Dan, but that "spirited debate" you so covet
has been an ongoing discussion for as long as these forums have existed.

Your intensity is laudable but tiring. Popping into each and every
thread to lay down a few paragraphs of what is often only tangentially
relevant material, turning simple, focused discussions of specific
technical details into a general discussion of whatever... It detracts
from the efficiency of the forum, and either directly confuses the
person we are here to help, or indirectly confuses them by igniting
"spirited debate" on matters which are only slightly related to their
issue

If it was a case of one or two long "spirited debates" every week or
two, in amongst all the rest of the task-oriented threads...

--
Gary S. Terhune
MS MVP Shell/User
http://www.grystmill.com/articles/cleanboot.htm
http://www.grystmill.com/articles/security.htm

"Dan" <spamyou@user.nec> wrote in message
news:u3Ck8TjHFHA.2420@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> I understand your point, Glen. I thought a spirited debate would be
nice but
> I can see that you and Gary do not care for it much.
>
> "glee" <glee29@spamindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:o cZeM$hHFHA.1096@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> : Dan seems determined to force those in the Win98 group to
participate in
> his WinXP
> : group discussions, disregarding the fact that if those in the 98
groups
> wanted to
> : participate in the XP groups, they would go there on their own.
> : --
> : Glen Ventura, MS MVP Shell/User, A+
> : http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
> :
> : "PA Bear" <PABearMVP@gmail.com> wrote in message
> : news:eEIu1xfHFHA.2132@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> : > <yawn>
> : >
> : > Dan wrote:
> : > > Which company is the best for protecting your computer? Which
company
> has
> : > > the best anti-spyware, anti-virus, and firewall solution to
protect the
> : > > individual, companies and the government? Please post your
feedback
> and
> : > > here is an article from Forbes about the two companies.
> : > >
> : > >
>
http://www.forbes.com/home/ebusiness/2005/02/28/cx_ah_0...
> : >
> :
>
>
March 1, 2005 12:07:42 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

If I limit it to maybe once a month or less would that be acceptable to you
and Glen?

"Gary S. Terhune" <grystnews@mvps.org> wrote in message
news:eLIPHCkHFHA.720@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
: Not sure where you've been, Dan, but that "spirited debate" you so covet
: has been an ongoing discussion for as long as these forums have existed.
:
: Your intensity is laudable but tiring. Popping into each and every
: thread to lay down a few paragraphs of what is often only tangentially
: relevant material, turning simple, focused discussions of specific
: technical details into a general discussion of whatever... It detracts
: from the efficiency of the forum, and either directly confuses the
: person we are here to help, or indirectly confuses them by igniting
: "spirited debate" on matters which are only slightly related to their
: issue
:
: If it was a case of one or two long "spirited debates" every week or
: two, in amongst all the rest of the task-oriented threads...
:
: --
: Gary S. Terhune
: MS MVP Shell/User
: http://www.grystmill.com/articles/cleanboot.htm
: http://www.grystmill.com/articles/security.htm
:
: "Dan" <spamyou@user.nec> wrote in message
: news:u3Ck8TjHFHA.2420@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
: > I understand your point, Glen. I thought a spirited debate would be
: nice but
: > I can see that you and Gary do not care for it much.
: >
: > "glee" <glee29@spamindspring.com> wrote in message
: > news:o cZeM$hHFHA.1096@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
: > : Dan seems determined to force those in the Win98 group to
: participate in
: > his WinXP
: > : group discussions, disregarding the fact that if those in the 98
: groups
: > wanted to
: > : participate in the XP groups, they would go there on their own.
: > : --
: > : Glen Ventura, MS MVP Shell/User, A+
: > : http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
: > :
: > : "PA Bear" <PABearMVP@gmail.com> wrote in message
: > : news:eEIu1xfHFHA.2132@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
: > : > <yawn>
: > : >
: > : > Dan wrote:
: > : > > Which company is the best for protecting your computer? Which
: company
: > has
: > : > > the best anti-spyware, anti-virus, and firewall solution to
: protect the
: > : > > individual, companies and the government? Please post your
: feedback
: > and
: > : > > here is an article from Forbes about the two companies.
: > : > >
: > : > >
: >
:
http://www.forbes.com/home/ebusiness/2005/02/28/cx_ah_0...
: > : >
: > :
: >
: >
:
Anonymous
March 1, 2005 1:20:34 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

Ken,

You should drop the Windows firewall and use Zone Alarm or even CA's EZ
Armor which is an older version of ZA.

Windows firewall is better than nothing but only blocks INcoming
traffic. Many viruses and rogue programs get on your PC and try to go
OUT and the Windows firewall will not even look at them.

ZA is Free, so is Sygate, which is also very good - each of these is
better than the Windows firewall.

Fred


Ken Gardner wrote:
> "Ken Blake" wrote:
>
>
>>>I'm not so sure. In my experience, when you use separate
>>>vendors for separate interrelated software functions (antivirus, spyware,
>>>and firewall), you are asking for trouble.
>
>
>
>>I don't think that these functions are really interrelated, and
>>that hasn't been my experience at all. I use one company's
>>products for anti-virus, a second for a firewall, and six others
>>for anti-spyware without any problems at all. That's on both of
>>my machines here, as well as on the machines of numbers of others
>>to whom I've recommended the same combinations.
>
>
> Actually, I'm having second thoughts about my original comment, even though
> it is still accurate as applied to me. Most of the people who are having
> recent trouble are people who install "security suites" such as Norton
> Internet Security. And in the interest of full disclosure, I now use
> Microsoft and Lavasoft for antispyware, EZ Trust for antivirus, and the
> Windows firewall. :) 
>
> Ken
Anonymous
March 1, 2005 2:08:39 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

I don't either. It's just noise, and doesn't belong here.

Dan wrote:
> I understand your point, Glen. I thought a spirited debate would be nice
but
> I can see that you and Gary do not care for it much.
>
> "glee" <glee29@spamindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:o cZeM$hHFHA.1096@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
>> Dan seems determined to force those in the Win98 group to participate in
his
>> WinXP group discussions, disregarding the fact that if those in the 98
>> groups wanted to participate in the XP groups, they would go there on
their
>> own. --
>> Glen Ventura, MS MVP Shell/User, A+
>> http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
>>
>> "PA Bear" <PABearMVP@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:eEIu1xfHFHA.2132@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>>> <yawn>
>>>
>>> Dan wrote:
>>>> Which company is the best for protecting your computer? Which company
has
>>>> the best anti-spyware, anti-virus, and firewall solution to protect the
>>>> individual, companies and the government? Please post your feedback
and
>>>> here is an article from Forbes about the two companies.
>>>>
>>>>
>
http://www.forbes.com/home/ebusiness/2005/02/28/cx_ah_0...
March 1, 2005 2:31:14 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

Well since identity theft is number 1 in Arizona where I live then I am very
concerned about it and what Microsoft and the U.S. government is doing to
safeguard our information. I heard about the fbi site being hacked. Is
nothing safe anymore and I wonder if their is a government site that I can
access to limit all sharing of my information on a need to know basis such as
the CIA, FBI or Homeland Security needs to know something and I doubt this
very much since I do not participate in illegal activity.

"Bill in Co." <someone@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:e%23Pi0moHFHA.2852@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
: I don't either. It's just noise, and doesn't belong here.
:
: Dan wrote:
: > I understand your point, Glen. I thought a spirited debate would be nice
: but
: > I can see that you and Gary do not care for it much.
: >
: > "glee" <glee29@spamindspring.com> wrote in message
: > news:o cZeM$hHFHA.1096@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
: >> Dan seems determined to force those in the Win98 group to participate in
: his
: >> WinXP group discussions, disregarding the fact that if those in the 98
: >> groups wanted to participate in the XP groups, they would go there on
: their
: >> own. --
: >> Glen Ventura, MS MVP Shell/User, A+
: >> http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
: >>
: >> "PA Bear" <PABearMVP@gmail.com> wrote in message
: >> news:eEIu1xfHFHA.2132@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
: >>> <yawn>
: >>>
: >>> Dan wrote:
: >>>> Which company is the best for protecting your computer? Which company
: has
: >>>> the best anti-spyware, anti-virus, and firewall solution to protect
the
: >>>> individual, companies and the government? Please post your feedback
: and
: >>>> here is an article from Forbes about the two companies.
: >>>>
: >>>>
: >
:
http://www.forbes.com/home/ebusiness/2005/02/28/cx_ah_0...
:
:
Anonymous
March 1, 2005 2:49:27 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

What does that have to do with crossposting between two operating system
support groups, with two different operating systems?

Dan wrote:
> Well since identity theft is number 1 in Arizona where I live then I am
very
> concerned about it and what Microsoft and the U.S. government is doing to
> safeguard our information. I heard about the fbi site being hacked. Is
> nothing safe anymore and I wonder if their is a government site that I can
> access to limit all sharing of my information on a need to know basis such
as
> the CIA, FBI or Homeland Security needs to know something and I doubt this
> very much since I do not participate in illegal activity.
>
> "Bill in Co." <someone@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:e%23Pi0moHFHA.2852@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>> I don't either. It's just noise, and doesn't belong here.
>>
>> Dan wrote:
>>> I understand your point, Glen. I thought a spirited debate would be
nice
>>> but I can see that you and Gary do not care for it much.
>>>
>>> "glee" <glee29@spamindspring.com> wrote in message
>>> news:o cZeM$hHFHA.1096@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
>>>> Dan seems determined to force those in the Win98 group to participate
in
>>>> his WinXP group discussions, disregarding the fact that if those in the
98
>>>> groups wanted to participate in the XP groups, they would go there on
their
>>>> own. --
>>>> Glen Ventura, MS MVP Shell/User, A+
>>>> http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
>>>>
>>>> "PA Bear" <PABearMVP@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:eEIu1xfHFHA.2132@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>>>>> <yawn>
>>>>>
>>>>> Dan wrote:
>>>>>> Which company is the best for protecting your computer? Which
company
>>>>>> has the best anti-spyware, anti-virus, and firewall solution to
protect
>>>>>> the individual, companies and the government? Please post your
feedback
>>>>>> and here is an article from Forbes about the two companies.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>
>>
>
http://www.forbes.com/home/ebusiness/2005/02/28/cx_ah_0...
March 1, 2005 2:55:40 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

Well since it is a problem with both XP and 98SE I thought two or more groups
should be involved in the discussion.

"Bill in Co." <someone@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:etWWn9oHFHA.4032@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
: What does that have to do with crossposting between two operating system
: support groups, with two different operating systems?
:
: Dan wrote:
: > Well since identity theft is number 1 in Arizona where I live then I am
: very
: > concerned about it and what Microsoft and the U.S. government is doing to
: > safeguard our information. I heard about the fbi site being hacked. Is
: > nothing safe anymore and I wonder if their is a government site that I
can
: > access to limit all sharing of my information on a need to know basis
such
: as
: > the CIA, FBI or Homeland Security needs to know something and I doubt
this
: > very much since I do not participate in illegal activity.
: >
: > "Bill in Co." <someone@earthlink.net> wrote in message
: > news:e%23Pi0moHFHA.2852@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
: >> I don't either. It's just noise, and doesn't belong here.
: >>
: >> Dan wrote:
: >>> I understand your point, Glen. I thought a spirited debate would be
: nice
: >>> but I can see that you and Gary do not care for it much.
: >>>
: >>> "glee" <glee29@spamindspring.com> wrote in message
: >>> news:o cZeM$hHFHA.1096@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
: >>>> Dan seems determined to force those in the Win98 group to participate
: in
: >>>> his WinXP group discussions, disregarding the fact that if those in
the
: 98
: >>>> groups wanted to participate in the XP groups, they would go there on
: their
: >>>> own. --
: >>>> Glen Ventura, MS MVP Shell/User, A+
: >>>> http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
: >>>>
: >>>> "PA Bear" <PABearMVP@gmail.com> wrote in message
: >>>> news:eEIu1xfHFHA.2132@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
: >>>>> <yawn>
: >>>>>
: >>>>> Dan wrote:
: >>>>>> Which company is the best for protecting your computer? Which
: company
: >>>>>> has the best anti-spyware, anti-virus, and firewall solution to
: protect
: >>>>>> the individual, companies and the government? Please post your
: feedback
: >>>>>> and here is an article from Forbes about the two companies.
: >>>>>>
: >>>>>>
: >>>
: >>
: >
:
http://www.forbes.com/home/ebusiness/2005/02/28/cx_ah_0...
:
:
Anonymous
March 1, 2005 3:17:06 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

Amen.

glee wrote:
> Dan seems determined to force those in the Win98 group to participate in
> his WinXP group discussions, disregarding the fact that if those in the 98
> groups wanted to participate in the XP groups, they would go there on
> their
> own.
>
> "PA Bear" <PABearMVP@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:eEIu1xfHFHA.2132@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>> <yawn>
>>
>> Dan wrote:
>>> Which company is the best for protecting your computer? Which company
>>> has
>>> the best anti-spyware, anti-virus, and firewall solution to protect the
>>> individual, companies and the government? Please post your feedback and
>>> here is an article from Forbes about the two companies.
>>>
>>> http://www.forbes.com/home/ebusiness/2005/02/28/cx_ah_0...
March 1, 2005 3:17:07 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

All right, I see the MVP's don't like what I am doing so I will relax and
cool it. It is just hard since my employee number and associated pin was
stolen recently by a co-worker at Target in Tucson, Arizona and I found out
that there was a problem when I saw the login history and knew that I had not
cashiered that day. This person or people could have stolen thousands of
dollars from Target and I would have had to prove my innocence. It is a good
thing that I grew up in N.Y.C. and have some street smarts as well as
programming since I was 7 with BASIC programming on my IBM PCjr which I still
have. Also, someone opened a Bank Of America statement at the Tempe Post
Office and I was fortunate that the information only contained a contact
person who I do not use but I still know my identity is being attacked by
people that want account information for drug (especially meth. use).
Finally, someone has been using a similar e-mail address as my Yahoo, e-mail
address and has been trying to get confidential Microsoft information that
way. I contacted Microsoft via e-mail this morning. I use my hotmail
address as my main address, report all spam to Microsoft and the Federal
Trade Commission at spam

Federal Trade <spam@uce.gov>,

Please alert Microsoft and the FTC (U.S. Government) so we can help solve
this spam problem for good. Have a nice day!

Godspeed (May God Go With You)

"PA Bear" <PABearMVP@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:eqcOBKoHFHA.2852@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
: Amen.
:
: glee wrote:
: > Dan seems determined to force those in the Win98 group to participate in
: > his WinXP group discussions, disregarding the fact that if those in the
98
: > groups wanted to participate in the XP groups, they would go there on
: > their
: > own.
: >
: > "PA Bear" <PABearMVP@gmail.com> wrote in message
: > news:eEIu1xfHFHA.2132@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
: >> <yawn>
: >>
: >> Dan wrote:
: >>> Which company is the best for protecting your computer? Which company
: >>> has
: >>> the best anti-spyware, anti-virus, and firewall solution to protect the
: >>> individual, companies and the government? Please post your feedback
and
: >>> here is an article from Forbes about the two companies.
: >>>
: >>>
http://www.forbes.com/home/ebusiness/2005/02/28/cx_ah_0...
:
Anonymous
March 1, 2005 3:42:43 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

I dunno....ask Bear. (but don't ask him while he's eating).
--
Glen Ventura, MS MVP Shell/User, A+
http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm

"Dan" <spamyou@user.nec> wrote in message
news:uQxoPjnHFHA.3588@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> If I limit it to maybe once a month or less would that be acceptable to you
> and Glen?
>
> "Gary S. Terhune" <grystnews@mvps.org> wrote in message
> news:eLIPHCkHFHA.720@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> : Not sure where you've been, Dan, but that "spirited debate" you so covet
> : has been an ongoing discussion for as long as these forums have existed.
> :
> : Your intensity is laudable but tiring. Popping into each and every
> : thread to lay down a few paragraphs of what is often only tangentially
> : relevant material, turning simple, focused discussions of specific
> : technical details into a general discussion of whatever... It detracts
> : from the efficiency of the forum, and either directly confuses the
> : person we are here to help, or indirectly confuses them by igniting
> : "spirited debate" on matters which are only slightly related to their
> : issue
> :
> : If it was a case of one or two long "spirited debates" every week or
> : two, in amongst all the rest of the task-oriented threads...
> :
> : --
> : Gary S. Terhune
> : MS MVP Shell/User
> : http://www.grystmill.com/articles/cleanboot.htm
> : http://www.grystmill.com/articles/security.htm
> :
> : "Dan" <spamyou@user.nec> wrote in message
> : news:u3Ck8TjHFHA.2420@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> : > I understand your point, Glen. I thought a spirited debate would be
> : nice but
> : > I can see that you and Gary do not care for it much.
> : >
> : > "glee" <glee29@spamindspring.com> wrote in message
> : > news:o cZeM$hHFHA.1096@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> : > : Dan seems determined to force those in the Win98 group to
> : participate in
> : > his WinXP
> : > : group discussions, disregarding the fact that if those in the 98
> : groups
> : > wanted to
> : > : participate in the XP groups, they would go there on their own.
> : > : --
> : > : Glen Ventura, MS MVP Shell/User, A+
> : > : http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
> : > :
> : > : "PA Bear" <PABearMVP@gmail.com> wrote in message
> : > : news:eEIu1xfHFHA.2132@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> : > : > <yawn>
> : > : >
> : > : > Dan wrote:
> : > : > > Which company is the best for protecting your computer? Which
> : company
> : > has
> : > : > > the best anti-spyware, anti-virus, and firewall solution to
> : protect the
> : > : > > individual, companies and the government? Please post your
> : feedback
> : > and
> : > : > > here is an article from Forbes about the two companies.
> : > : > >
> : > : > >
> : >
> :
> http://www.forbes.com/home/ebusiness/2005/02/28/cx_ah_0...
> : > : >
> : > :
> : >
> : >
> :
>
>
March 1, 2005 3:42:44 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

:>
"glee" <glee29@spamindspring.com> wrote in message
news:%23EpIfYoHFHA.4004@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
: I dunno....ask Bear. (but don't ask him while he's eating).
: --
: Glen Ventura, MS MVP Shell/User, A+
: http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
:
: "Dan" <spamyou@user.nec> wrote in message
: news:uQxoPjnHFHA.3588@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
: > If I limit it to maybe once a month or less would that be acceptable to
you
: > and Glen?
: >
: > "Gary S. Terhune" <grystnews@mvps.org> wrote in message
: > news:eLIPHCkHFHA.720@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
: > : Not sure where you've been, Dan, but that "spirited debate" you so
covet
: > : has been an ongoing discussion for as long as these forums have
existed.
: > :
: > : Your intensity is laudable but tiring. Popping into each and every
: > : thread to lay down a few paragraphs of what is often only tangentially
: > : relevant material, turning simple, focused discussions of specific
: > : technical details into a general discussion of whatever... It detracts
: > : from the efficiency of the forum, and either directly confuses the
: > : person we are here to help, or indirectly confuses them by igniting
: > : "spirited debate" on matters which are only slightly related to their
: > : issue
: > :
: > : If it was a case of one or two long "spirited debates" every week or
: > : two, in amongst all the rest of the task-oriented threads...
: > :
: > : --
: > : Gary S. Terhune
: > : MS MVP Shell/User
: > : http://www.grystmill.com/articles/cleanboot.htm
: > : http://www.grystmill.com/articles/security.htm
: > :
: > : "Dan" <spamyou@user.nec> wrote in message
: > : news:u3Ck8TjHFHA.2420@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
: > : > I understand your point, Glen. I thought a spirited debate would be
: > : nice but
: > : > I can see that you and Gary do not care for it much.
: > : >
: > : > "glee" <glee29@spamindspring.com> wrote in message
: > : > news:o cZeM$hHFHA.1096@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
: > : > : Dan seems determined to force those in the Win98 group to
: > : participate in
: > : > his WinXP
: > : > : group discussions, disregarding the fact that if those in the 98
: > : groups
: > : > wanted to
: > : > : participate in the XP groups, they would go there on their own.
: > : > : --
: > : > : Glen Ventura, MS MVP Shell/User, A+
: > : > : http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
: > : > :
: > : > : "PA Bear" <PABearMVP@gmail.com> wrote in message
: > : > : news:eEIu1xfHFHA.2132@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
: > : > : > <yawn>
: > : > : >
: > : > : > Dan wrote:
: > : > : > > Which company is the best for protecting your computer? Which
: > : company
: > : > has
: > : > : > > the best anti-spyware, anti-virus, and firewall solution to
: > : protect the
: > : > : > > individual, companies and the government? Please post your
: > : feedback
: > : > and
: > : > : > > here is an article from Forbes about the two companies.
: > : > : > >
: > : > : > >
: > : >
: > :
: >
http://www.forbes.com/home/ebusiness/2005/02/28/cx_ah_0...
: > : > : >
: > : > :
: > : >
: > : >
: > :
: >
: >
:
Anonymous
March 1, 2005 3:49:57 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

In news:0D7BA643-B2CA-4A9B-9EEC-4012B931979D@microsoft.com,
Ken Gardner <KenGardner@discussions.microsoft.com> typed:

> "Ken Blake" wrote:
>
>>> I'm not so sure. In my experience, when you use separate
>>> vendors for separate interrelated software functions
>>> (antivirus,
>>> spyware, and firewall), you are asking for trouble.
>
>> I don't think that these functions are really interrelated,
>> and
>> that hasn't been my experience at all. I use one company's
>> products for anti-virus, a second for a firewall, and six
>> others
>> for anti-spyware without any problems at all. That's on both
>> of
>> my machines here, as well as on the machines of numbers of
>> others
>> to whom I've recommended the same combinations.
>
> Actually, I'm having second thoughts about my original comment,
> even
> though it is still accurate as applied to me. Most of the
> people who
> are having recent trouble are people who install "security
> suites"
> such as Norton Internet Security.


OK, glad to hear it.


> And in the interest of full
> disclosure, I now use Microsoft and Lavasoft for antispyware,
> EZ
> Trust for antivirus, and the Windows firewall. :) 


LOL! If that's meant as a dig, I wasn't trying to hide what
products I use. I've posted them here before. I didn't mention
their names because it wasn't relevant to my point.

I use NAV (despite all the bad things you hear about it, I've
been using it for years successfully, and have never seen any
reason to change), the free version of ZoneAlarm, and the
following anti-spyware products:

Spyware Blaster
AdAware
Spybot Search and Destroy
Spyware Guard
Microsoft Anti-Spyware
IE-Spyad
Winpatrol
SWShredder

--
Ken Blake - Microsoft MVP Windows: Shell/User
Please reply to the newsgroup
Anonymous
March 1, 2005 5:59:02 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

"Ken Blake" wrote:

> > And in the interest of full
> > disclosure, I now use Microsoft and Lavasoft for antispyware,
> > EZ Trust for antivirus, and the Windows firewall. :) 

> LOL! If that's meant as a dig, I wasn't trying to hide what
> products I use. I've posted them here before. I didn't mention
> their names because it wasn't relevant to my point.

> I use NAV (despite all the bad things you hear about it, I've
> been using it for years successfully, and have never seen any
> reason to change), the free version of ZoneAlarm, and the
> following anti-spyware products:

I used NAV pretty much exclusively on Windows products (going all the way to
Windows 95 and even 3.1 if I remember correctly) until late 2003, when I
switched to Trend Micro and, still later, CA (my current product). NAV is
still Symantec's best product, hands down.

> Spyware Blaster
> AdAware
> Spybot Search and Destroy
> Spyware Guard
> Microsoft Anti-Spyware
> IE-Spyad
> Winpatrol
> SWShredder

I think I have used most of these products at least once. I still use Ad
Aware, and I used Spybot until the Microsoft beta became available. I
stopped using Spyware Blaster and IE-Spyad when I started using the beta
version of SP2. Nevertheless, I still use these two programs on my computer
dumbass brother's computer. I think I used SWShredder once or twice. I
don't recognize the other two products.

The good news seems to be that Ad Aware SE continues to be steady and
reliable, and the antispyware software is slowly improving from what it used
to be as recently as 6-8 months ago.
Anonymous
March 1, 2005 9:09:08 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

One of the problems is that the S/N ratio is already excessively high in
WinXP General, Dan, without crossposted, chatty 'Discuss this' threads
getting in the way.

Another is Kelly. <eg> (See Truman & MacArthur)

Dan wrote:
> All right, I see the MVP's don't like what I am doing so I will relax and
> cool it
Anonymous
March 1, 2005 9:11:04 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

Ken Blake wrote:
>
> Spyware Blaster
> AdAware
> Spybot Search and Destroy
> Spyware Guard
> Microsoft Anti-Spyware
> IE-Spyad
> Winpatrol
> SWShredder

My guess is that you can eat off the floors in your home they are so
clean.
Anonymous
March 1, 2005 9:11:05 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

In news:4225043d$0$11334$bb4e3ad8@newscene.com,
Plato <|@|.|> typed:

> Ken Blake wrote:
>>
>> Spyware Blaster
>> AdAware
>> Spybot Search and Destroy
>> Spyware Guard
>> Microsoft Anti-Spyware
>> IE-Spyad
>> Winpatrol
>> SWShredder
>
> My guess is that you can eat off the floors in your home they
> are so
> clean.


LOL! But whatever the merits of eating off the floors, the merits
of having a clean computer are clear.

It takes very little time to run these. I may not need to run
them all, but it doesn't hurt, and I feel more comfortable
knowing that the risk of problems is very slight.

--
Ken Blake - Microsoft MVP Windows: Shell/User
Please reply to the newsgroup
Anonymous
March 1, 2005 10:17:27 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

Hugh Candlin wrote:

>
>
> Overall, a scathing indictment of an operating system, isn't it?.
>
> Microsoft could offer me the Windows source code,
> free, with permission to market it as I see fit
> and I would turn the offer down on principle.
>
> I can only hope that Microsoft will see the light,
> stop wasting valuable resources patching quicksand,
> junk their current obsolete WinTel architecture
> and develop products worthy of the 21st century
> in which the rest of us lives.
>
> Before the people already working on such products
> beat them to it, although they may already be too late.
>
> Watching Microsoft at work is like watching an elephant die.
> It is slow. It is stubborn. It is painful. It is inevitably fatal.
>
>


And we're all waiting with bated breath for the better OS that you seem
to think you're capable of developing.


--

Bruce Chambers

Help us help you:
http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on having
both at once. - RAH
March 1, 2005 10:28:11 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

IE-Spyad caused a problem on my system a while back so I do not use it.
After the false positive for a baddie in CWShredder I do not use it --- the
version that was bad was from Intermute and AntiVir claimed it was bad but it
turned out to be a false positive. I like and use SpySweeper by Webroot.
Just today startpage and CWShredder somehow got onto my system but SpySweeper
cleaned them up without a fuss -- 3 registry entries with about 5 associated
traces --- not too big a deal

"Ken Blake" <kblake@this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote in message
news:uDH8cfpHFHA.2752@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
: In news:0D7BA643-B2CA-4A9B-9EEC-4012B931979D@microsoft.com,
: Ken Gardner <KenGardner@discussions.microsoft.com> typed:
:
: > "Ken Blake" wrote:
: >
: >>> I'm not so sure. In my experience, when you use separate
: >>> vendors for separate interrelated software functions
: >>> (antivirus,
: >>> spyware, and firewall), you are asking for trouble.
: >
: >> I don't think that these functions are really interrelated,
: >> and
: >> that hasn't been my experience at all. I use one company's
: >> products for anti-virus, a second for a firewall, and six
: >> others
: >> for anti-spyware without any problems at all. That's on both
: >> of
: >> my machines here, as well as on the machines of numbers of
: >> others
: >> to whom I've recommended the same combinations.
: >
: > Actually, I'm having second thoughts about my original comment,
: > even
: > though it is still accurate as applied to me. Most of the
: > people who
: > are having recent trouble are people who install "security
: > suites"
: > such as Norton Internet Security.
:
:
: OK, glad to hear it.
:
:
: > And in the interest of full
: > disclosure, I now use Microsoft and Lavasoft for antispyware,
: > EZ
: > Trust for antivirus, and the Windows firewall. :) 
:
:
: LOL! If that's meant as a dig, I wasn't trying to hide what
: products I use. I've posted them here before. I didn't mention
: their names because it wasn't relevant to my point.
:
: I use NAV (despite all the bad things you hear about it, I've
: been using it for years successfully, and have never seen any
: reason to change), the free version of ZoneAlarm, and the
: following anti-spyware products:
:
: Spyware Blaster
: AdAware
: Spybot Search and Destroy
: Spyware Guard
: Microsoft Anti-Spyware
: IE-Spyad
: Winpatrol
: SWShredder
:
: --
: Ken Blake - Microsoft MVP Windows: Shell/User
: Please reply to the newsgroup
:
:
Anonymous
March 1, 2005 10:40:04 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

Ken Blake wrote:
>
> My sentiments exactly. There's no cost to running a better
> firewall (many are free) and since there is no guarantee that
> "protective procedures" are ever perfect, the prudent thing to do
> is to run a bi-directional firewall.

Got teens in the house? I put in a Linksys Router w/built in firewall
only to find that the teen upstairs took about 10 minutes to learn how
to disable ports to allow access to what he believed, was ONLY his pc.







--
http://www.bootdisk.com/
Anonymous
March 1, 2005 10:40:05 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

So put a password on the router setup, <bg>.

--
Gary S. Terhune
MS MVP Shell/User
http://www.grystmill.com/articles/cleanboot.htm
http://www.grystmill.com/articles/security.htm

"Plato" <|@|.|> wrote in message
news:422518fe$0$11303$bb4e3ad8@newscene.com...
> Ken Blake wrote:
> >
> > My sentiments exactly. There's no cost to running a better
> > firewall (many are free) and since there is no guarantee that
> > "protective procedures" are ever perfect, the prudent thing to do
> > is to run a bi-directional firewall.
>
> Got teens in the house? I put in a Linksys Router w/built in firewall
> only to find that the teen upstairs took about 10 minutes to learn how
> to disable ports to allow access to what he believed, was ONLY his pc.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> http://www.bootdisk.com/
>
>
March 1, 2005 10:40:05 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

What was the router number, Plato? My router is a wired 4-port router model
number --- BEFSX41. Can this Router be hacked? I also have ZoneAlarm Pro.
as my software firewall. Has your teenager managed to get past both
firewalls and if so your teen will soon be in for a surprise if he tries to
attack my machine because I soon plan to have a third firewall that will hack
the person attempting to hack me. I have to research this and see if it can
be sold for corporations such as Target Corp. or if I have to acquire it
through my government connections. Have a nice night!

"Plato" <|@|.|> wrote in message
news:422518fe$0$11303$bb4e3ad8@newscene.com...
: Ken Blake wrote:
: >
: > My sentiments exactly. There's no cost to running a better
: > firewall (many are free) and since there is no guarantee that
: > "protective procedures" are ever perfect, the prudent thing to do
: > is to run a bi-directional firewall.
:
: Got teens in the house? I put in a Linksys Router w/built in firewall
: only to find that the teen upstairs took about 10 minutes to learn how
: to disable ports to allow access to what he believed, was ONLY his pc.
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
: --
: http://www.bootdisk.com/
:
:
!