Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Anti Virus/Firewal

Last response: in Windows 95/98/ME
Share
Anonymous
June 24, 2005 8:55:36 PM

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

Well, after experiencing problems with my PC I tracked the culprit to be
McAfee.

Have temporarily install the trial version of eTrust EZ Armor which appears
to be good. No computer lockups, download problems and scanner send to Photo
Deluxe HE. The previous problems were present with McAfee.

Need advise from MVPs about best programs that use less resources than
McAfee.

Is EZ Armor ok, if not why and what should I consider.

Thanks in advance.


BL

More about : anti virus firewal

Anonymous
June 24, 2005 9:04:08 PM

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

> Well, after experiencing problems with my PC I tracked the culprit
to be
> McAfee.
>
> Have temporarily install the trial version of eTrust EZ Armor which
appears
> to be good. No computer lockups, download problems and scanner send
to Photo
> Deluxe HE. The previous problems were present with McAfee.
>
> Need advise from MVPs about best programs that use less resources
than
> McAfee.
>
> Is EZ Armor ok, if not why and what should I consider.

I use AVG antivirus and it hasn't let me down yet. I don't notice a
performance drop with it, and am perfectly satisfied. You can get a
Beta of AVG Antivirus 7 and Firewall or just AVG Free. I'm currently
using the beta but usually use AVG Free.

jkb
Anonymous
June 24, 2005 10:25:49 PM

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

You may want to investigate Avast. I've been using it for a couple of
years without any problems. If interested, visit
www.avast.com

"MedRxMan" <medrxman@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:uH5c18PeFHA.2700@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> Well, after experiencing problems with my PC I tracked the culprit
to be
> McAfee.
>
> Have temporarily install the trial version of eTrust EZ Armor which
appears
> to be good. No computer lockups, download problems and scanner send
to Photo
> Deluxe HE. The previous problems were present with McAfee.
>
> Need advise from MVPs about best programs that use less resources
than
> McAfee.
>
> Is EZ Armor ok, if not why and what should I consider.
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
>
> BL
>
>
Related resources
Anonymous
June 25, 2005 12:07:13 AM

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

IMHO you have the best program there is, well worth the money.

--
Richard G. Harper [MVP Shell/User] rgharper@gmail.com
* PLEASE post all messages and replies in the newsgroups
* for the benefit of all. Private mail is usually not replied to.
* My website, such as it is ... http://rgharper.mvps.org/
* HELP us help YOU ... http://www.dts-l.org/goodpost.htm


"MedRxMan" <medrxman@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:uH5c18PeFHA.2700@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> Well, after experiencing problems with my PC I tracked the culprit to be
> McAfee.
>
> Have temporarily install the trial version of eTrust EZ Armor which
> appears
> to be good. No computer lockups, download problems and scanner send to
> Photo
> Deluxe HE. The previous problems were present with McAfee.
>
> Need advise from MVPs about best programs that use less resources than
> McAfee.
>
> Is EZ Armor ok, if not why and what should I consider.
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
>
> BL
>
>
Anonymous
June 25, 2005 12:07:14 AM

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

Which one? McAfee or EZ Armor, <g>?

My own answer to OP is "EZ"--see "Security" link my sig.

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

"Richard G. Harper" <rgharper@email.com> wrote in message
news:o D3mUnReFHA.3012@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> IMHO you have the best program there is, well worth the money.
>
> --
> Richard G. Harper [MVP Shell/User] rgharper@gmail.com
> * PLEASE post all messages and replies in the newsgroups
> * for the benefit of all. Private mail is usually not replied to.
> * My website, such as it is ... http://rgharper.mvps.org/
> * HELP us help YOU ... http://www.dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
>
>
> "MedRxMan" <medrxman@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:uH5c18PeFHA.2700@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
>> Well, after experiencing problems with my PC I tracked the culprit to
>> be
>> McAfee.
>>
>> Have temporarily install the trial version of eTrust EZ Armor which
>> appears
>> to be good. No computer lockups, download problems and scanner send
>> to Photo
>> Deluxe HE. The previous problems were present with McAfee.
>>
>> Need advise from MVPs about best programs that use less resources
>> than
>> McAfee.
>>
>> Is EZ Armor ok, if not why and what should I consider.
>>
>> Thanks in advance.
>>
>>
>> BL
>>
>>
>
>
Anonymous
June 25, 2005 9:40:30 AM

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

Don't use the firewall but the antivirus. and not a MVP.
I have used EZ for years (since it was Cheyenne) and have not found any I
like better. It is effective, light on resources and never caused a
conflict/problem of any kind. However they changed the interface and removed
the configuration options so now that I don't like. I want real time
all-file monitoring when connected to internet without effecting performance
(as EZ does) but ability to select different options for other times (which
EZ removed for some strange reason)

I recently tried Anti-vir, Avast, and Avg. You might try them (or others)
to see which meets your needs.

Antivir is the closest I have to matching - (low resources and memory-even
less than EZ, configurable, never a problem, but large updates (3MB+) to
download - support forum in German but has English for main issues-no
problem as there are other forums)

Avg would be good (low resources, configurable, small updates) but it
caused too many problems for me (lock-ups and GPF's). Good user to user
support forum.

Avast used a lot of memory and resources, wants to open port 35 using DCOM
for updating, let me download EICAR test without a peep-could not use real
time file monitoring when browsing. Best thing is its fast and small
updates, good support forums.

I don't know which I will try next - I am using 98 to test antivirus for XP,
since I know more about 98 and can easily remove everything.
--
mae

"MedRxMan" <medrxman@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:uH5c18PeFHA.2700@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
| Well, after experiencing problems with my PC I tracked the culprit to be
| McAfee.
|
| Have temporarily install the trial version of eTrust EZ Armor which
appears
| to be good. No computer lockups, download problems and scanner send to
Photo
| Deluxe HE. The previous problems were present with McAfee.
|
| Need advise from MVPs about best programs that use less resources than
| McAfee.
|
| Is EZ Armor ok, if not why and what should I consider.
|
| Thanks in advance.
|
|
| BL
Anonymous
June 25, 2005 9:54:34 AM

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

EZ, of course ... ;-)

--
Richard G. Harper [MVP Shell/User] rgharper@gmail.com
* PLEASE post all messages and replies in the newsgroups
* for the benefit of all. Private mail is usually not replied to.
* My website, such as it is ... http://rgharper.mvps.org/
* HELP us help YOU ... http://www.dts-l.org/goodpost.htm


"Gary S. Terhune" <grystnews@mvps.org> wrote in message
news:%23DniO2ReFHA.3028@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Which one? McAfee or EZ Armor, <g>?
>
> My own answer to OP is "EZ"--see "Security" link my sig.
>
> --
> Gary S. Terhune
> MS MVP Shell/User
> http://www.grystmill.com/articles/cleanboot.htm
> http://www.grystmill.com/articles/security.htm
>
> "Richard G. Harper" <rgharper@email.com> wrote in message
> news:o D3mUnReFHA.3012@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
>> IMHO you have the best program there is, well worth the money.
>>
>> --
>> Richard G. Harper [MVP Shell/User] rgharper@gmail.com
>> * PLEASE post all messages and replies in the newsgroups
>> * for the benefit of all. Private mail is usually not replied to.
>> * My website, such as it is ... http://rgharper.mvps.org/
>> * HELP us help YOU ... http://www.dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
>>
>>
>> "MedRxMan" <medrxman@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:uH5c18PeFHA.2700@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
>>> Well, after experiencing problems with my PC I tracked the culprit to be
>>> McAfee.
>>>
>>> Have temporarily install the trial version of eTrust EZ Armor which
>>> appears
>>> to be good. No computer lockups, download problems and scanner send to
>>> Photo
>>> Deluxe HE. The previous problems were present with McAfee.
>>>
>>> Need advise from MVPs about best programs that use less resources than
>>> McAfee.
>>>
>>> Is EZ Armor ok, if not why and what should I consider.
>>>
>>> Thanks in advance.
>>>
>>>
>>> BL
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
Anonymous
June 25, 2005 4:38:07 PM

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

I have found( up to this point) that Trust EZ Armor has not caused ANY
problems/conflicts.

You mentioned configuration for real time monitoring has been changed. I
looked at the options and it looks to be there as far as I can see.

Here is a copy of the help feature explaining what I see in the options
pane:
Enabling (Options | Real-time Protection | Enabling)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--

Enable Real-time floppy disk boot sector protection

You can configure the floppy disk protection by selecting Options |
Real-time protection | Floppy Boot Sectors.

Real-time floppy protection settings

Enable Real-time File Monitor (On access file protection)

This will allow eTrust EZ Antivirus to automatically check files for viruses
as they are accessed by Windows.

Enable Real-time email monitor (email protection)

This will allow eTrust EZ Antivirus to automatically scan email messages
before they arrive. Any messages containing viruses will be treated
according to your Virus Actions configuration.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
Looks to be able to do what you are complaining about.

As I indicated in my original post, I have removed McAfee for many issues,
ESPECIALLY slow down and lock ups.
I actually reformatted the HDD and did a fresh install of
Windows98SE,applied all security patches from MS CD and MS Website.
installed MS Office PRO 2000 and fully patched it the same way .

Added all my usual programs then I installed the trial version of EZ Armor
and everything running great.

My PC has never been as fast as it is running now. Pages on the internet
load and refresh better than my Laptop with XP Pro.

My Laptop has McAfee on it currently and runs well, however assuming no
future problems with EZ Armor, McAfee will be replaced on the Laptop at the
end of its license time.



"mae" <agrannie@notemail.msn.com> wrote in message
news:uXGbkKXeFHA.132@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> Don't use the firewall but the antivirus. and not a MVP.
> I have used EZ for years (since it was Cheyenne) and have not found any I
> like better. It is effective, light on resources and never caused a
> conflict/problem of any kind. However they changed the interface and
removed
> the configuration options so now that I don't like. I want real time
> all-file monitoring when connected to internet without effecting
performance
> (as EZ does) but ability to select different options for other times
(which
> EZ removed for some strange reason)
>
> I recently tried Anti-vir, Avast, and Avg. You might try them (or
others)
> to see which meets your needs.
>
> Antivir is the closest I have to matching - (low resources and
memory-even
> less than EZ, configurable, never a problem, but large updates (3MB+) to
> download - support forum in German but has English for main issues-no
> problem as there are other forums)
>
> Avg would be good (low resources, configurable, small updates) but it
> caused too many problems for me (lock-ups and GPF's). Good user to user
> support forum.
>
> Avast used a lot of memory and resources, wants to open port 35 using
DCOM
> for updating, let me download EICAR test without a peep-could not use real
> time file monitoring when browsing. Best thing is its fast and small
> updates, good support forums.
>
> I don't know which I will try next - I am using 98 to test antivirus for
XP,
> since I know more about 98 and can easily remove everything.
> --
> mae
>
> "MedRxMan" <medrxman@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:uH5c18PeFHA.2700@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> | Well, after experiencing problems with my PC I tracked the culprit to be
> | McAfee.
> |
> | Have temporarily install the trial version of eTrust EZ Armor which
> appears
> | to be good. No computer lockups, download problems and scanner send to
> Photo
> | Deluxe HE. The previous problems were present with McAfee.
> |
> | Need advise from MVPs about best programs that use less resources than
> | McAfee.
> |
> | Is EZ Armor ok, if not why and what should I consider.
> |
> | Thanks in advance.
> |
> |
> | BL
>
Anonymous
June 25, 2005 4:45:05 PM

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

> Avg would be good (low resources, configurable, small updates) but
it
> caused too many problems for me (lock-ups and GPF's). Good user to
user
> support forum.

What problems did you have with AVG? I haven't had any with it. I find
it reliable and as you said, low demands. It's kept my computer safe.
:-)

jkb
Anonymous
June 25, 2005 8:34:31 PM

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

I (MedRxMan have never tried AVG.. The problem was with the user :mae" as
per her extrappelated quote"

"> Avg would be good (low resources, configurable, small updates) but it
> caused too many problems for me (lock-ups and GPF's). Good user to user
> support forum."
"mae"
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
"jkb" <nospam@none> wrote in message
news:%23l77tUaeFHA.3280@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> > Avg would be good (low resources, configurable, small updates) but
> it
> > caused too many problems for me (lock-ups and GPF's). Good user to
> user
> > support forum.
>
> What problems did you have with AVG? I haven't had any with it. I find
> it reliable and as you said, low demands. It's kept my computer safe.
> :-)
>
> jkb
>
>
Anonymous
June 25, 2005 10:07:58 PM

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

I was actually asking mae, Maybe my question didn't turn up right :-).
Anonymous
June 26, 2005 2:48:32 AM

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

I don't know why it caused problems.
I had no e-mail scanning and alternated "all files".
I did try a reinstall too
Kept getting errors which ending task on Avg cleared the problem.
Can't remember all but like:
msgserver not responding- most related to avgcc or avgamsrv
avgcc caused a general protection fault --different modules
When browsing, I got an err that lead to "you must restart Windows",
I then uninstalled and had no more problems.
I never encountered this with anything before.
Too bad because it is similar in some aspects to the old EZ,.
I would have purchased it otherwise.
--
mae

"jkb" <nospam@none> wrote in message news:%23l77tUaeFHA.3280@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
| > Avg would be good (low resources, configurable, small updates) but
| it
| > caused too many problems for me (lock-ups and GPF's). Good user to
| user
| > support forum.
|
| What problems did you have with AVG? I haven't had any with it. I find
| it reliable and as you said, low demands. It's kept my computer safe.
| :-)
|
| jkb
|
|
Anonymous
June 26, 2005 2:59:01 AM

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

I think you misunderstood - I don't need "all files" all the time. I do want when connected to internet and other selectable times only.
They now have a default with limited choices.
Every item is individually configurable in old version and I would like those options.
Some they removed:
view files in detail and sort.
interface size was adjustable.
one main toolbar had real access to everything.
choice of type of scan.
choice of all files or file types.
(types which you could add to or remove, not just exclude)
how you wanted the file monitored.
If a virus was found it offered many options.
set your limit on logs
set time you wanted a reminder if you manually updated.
keep the update in the event it was needed before the next one.
showed the date of the last signature file, not just the version.
Had password, templates, reference disk.
--
mae

"MedRxMan" <medrxman@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:eGZloRaeFHA.712@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
| I have found( up to this point) that Trust EZ Armor has not caused ANY
| problems/conflicts.
|
| You mentioned configuration for real time monitoring has been changed. I
| looked at the options and it looks to be there as far as I can see.
|
| Here is a copy of the help feature explaining what I see in the options
| pane:
| Enabling (Options | Real-time Protection | Enabling)
| ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
| --
|
| Enable Real-time floppy disk boot sector protection
|
| You can configure the floppy disk protection by selecting Options |
| Real-time protection | Floppy Boot Sectors.
|
| Real-time floppy protection settings
|
| Enable Real-time File Monitor (On access file protection)
|
| This will allow eTrust EZ Antivirus to automatically check files for viruses
| as they are accessed by Windows.
|
| Enable Real-time email monitor (email protection)
|
| This will allow eTrust EZ Antivirus to automatically scan email messages
| before they arrive. Any messages containing viruses will be treated
| according to your Virus Actions configuration.
| ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| ---
| Looks to be able to do what you are complaining about.
|
| As I indicated in my original post, I have removed McAfee for many issues,
| ESPECIALLY slow down and lock ups.
| I actually reformatted the HDD and did a fresh install of
| Windows98SE,applied all security patches from MS CD and MS Website.
| installed MS Office PRO 2000 and fully patched it the same way .
|
| Added all my usual programs then I installed the trial version of EZ Armor
| and everything running great.
|
| My PC has never been as fast as it is running now. Pages on the internet
| load and refresh better than my Laptop with XP Pro.
|
| My Laptop has McAfee on it currently and runs well, however assuming no
| future problems with EZ Armor, McAfee will be replaced on the Laptop at the
| end of its license time.
|
|
|
| "mae" <agrannie@notemail.msn.com> wrote in message
| news:uXGbkKXeFHA.132@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
| > Don't use the firewall but the antivirus. and not a MVP.
| > I have used EZ for years (since it was Cheyenne) and have not found any I
| > like better. It is effective, light on resources and never caused a
| > conflict/problem of any kind. However they changed the interface and
| removed
| > the configuration options so now that I don't like. I want real time
| > all-file monitoring when connected to internet without effecting
| performance
| > (as EZ does) but ability to select different options for other times
| (which
| > EZ removed for some strange reason)
| >
| > I recently tried Anti-vir, Avast, and Avg. You might try them (or
| others)
| > to see which meets your needs.
| >
| > Antivir is the closest I have to matching - (low resources and
| memory-even
| > less than EZ, configurable, never a problem, but large updates (3MB+) to
| > download - support forum in German but has English for main issues-no
| > problem as there are other forums)
| >
| > Avg would be good (low resources, configurable, small updates) but it
| > caused too many problems for me (lock-ups and GPF's). Good user to user
| > support forum.
| >
| > Avast used a lot of memory and resources, wants to open port 35 using
| DCOM
| > for updating, let me download EICAR test without a peep-could not use real
| > time file monitoring when browsing. Best thing is its fast and small
| > updates, good support forums.
| >
| > I don't know which I will try next - I am using 98 to test antivirus for
| XP,
| > since I know more about 98 and can easily remove everything.
| > --
| > mae
| >
| > "MedRxMan" <medrxman@yahoo.com> wrote in message
| > news:uH5c18PeFHA.2700@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
| > | Well, after experiencing problems with my PC I tracked the culprit to be
| > | McAfee.
| > |
| > | Have temporarily install the trial version of eTrust EZ Armor which
| > appears
| > | to be good. No computer lockups, download problems and scanner send to
| > Photo
| > | Deluxe HE. The previous problems were present with McAfee.
| > |
| > | Need advise from MVPs about best programs that use less resources than
| > | McAfee.
| > |
| > | Is EZ Armor ok, if not why and what should I consider.
| > |
| > | Thanks in advance.
| > |
| > |
| > | BL
| >
|
|
Anonymous
June 26, 2005 3:42:03 AM

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

I would agree with you on many of your points. I only had one problem
with the old EZAV and that was its rather temperamental behavior when
specifying scheduled updates of short intervals (pretty much anything
less than a day or few.)

On the other hand, I understand much of the philosophy that I presume
went into the new interface--the more there is to play with, the more
the average user is likely to shoot him/herself in the foot. It's an
increasingly common approach in lots of places, particularly where
security is concerned. Windows XP SP2 is another example. We MVPs (and
myriad others) have yelled, screamed and stamped our collective foot for
years to get MS to change default settings to favor security over "cool
new features", and now that they've listened and started implementing
many of our suggestions we're going to have to ease them away from the
new philosophy of "We're not going to let you do that, at least not
easily, because it *might* be risky behavior."

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

"mae" <agrannie@notemail.msn.com> wrote in message
news:eFBYxMgeFHA.1328@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
I think you misunderstood - I don't need "all files" all the time. I do
want when connected to internet and other selectable times only.
They now have a default with limited choices.
Every item is individually configurable in old version and I would like
those options.
Some they removed:
view files in detail and sort.
interface size was adjustable.
one main toolbar had real access to everything.
choice of type of scan.
choice of all files or file types.
(types which you could add to or remove, not just exclude)
how you wanted the file monitored.
If a virus was found it offered many options.
set your limit on logs
set time you wanted a reminder if you manually updated.
keep the update in the event it was needed before the next one.
showed the date of the last signature file, not just the version.
Had password, templates, reference disk.
--
mae

"MedRxMan" <medrxman@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:eGZloRaeFHA.712@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
| I have found( up to this point) that Trust EZ Armor has not caused ANY
| problems/conflicts.
|
| You mentioned configuration for real time monitoring has been changed.
I
| looked at the options and it looks to be there as far as I can see.
|
| Here is a copy of the help feature explaining what I see in the
options
| pane:
| Enabling (Options | Real-time Protection | Enabling)
| ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
| --
|
| Enable Real-time floppy disk boot sector protection
|
| You can configure the floppy disk protection by selecting Options |
| Real-time protection | Floppy Boot Sectors.
|
| Real-time floppy protection settings
|
| Enable Real-time File Monitor (On access file protection)
|
| This will allow eTrust EZ Antivirus to automatically check files for
viruses
| as they are accessed by Windows.
|
| Enable Real-time email monitor (email protection)
|
| This will allow eTrust EZ Antivirus to automatically scan email
messages
| before they arrive. Any messages containing viruses will be treated
| according to your Virus Actions configuration.
| ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| ---
| Looks to be able to do what you are complaining about.
|
| As I indicated in my original post, I have removed McAfee for many
issues,
| ESPECIALLY slow down and lock ups.
| I actually reformatted the HDD and did a fresh install of
| Windows98SE,applied all security patches from MS CD and MS Website.
| installed MS Office PRO 2000 and fully patched it the same way .
|
| Added all my usual programs then I installed the trial version of EZ
Armor
| and everything running great.
|
| My PC has never been as fast as it is running now. Pages on the
internet
| load and refresh better than my Laptop with XP Pro.
|
| My Laptop has McAfee on it currently and runs well, however assuming
no
| future problems with EZ Armor, McAfee will be replaced on the Laptop
at the
| end of its license time.
|
|
|
| "mae" <agrannie@notemail.msn.com> wrote in message
| news:uXGbkKXeFHA.132@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
| > Don't use the firewall but the antivirus. and not a MVP.
| > I have used EZ for years (since it was Cheyenne) and have not found
any I
| > like better. It is effective, light on resources and never caused a
| > conflict/problem of any kind. However they changed the interface and
| removed
| > the configuration options so now that I don't like. I want real time
| > all-file monitoring when connected to internet without effecting
| performance
| > (as EZ does) but ability to select different options for other times
| (which
| > EZ removed for some strange reason)
| >
| > I recently tried Anti-vir, Avast, and Avg. You might try them (or
| others)
| > to see which meets your needs.
| >
| > Antivir is the closest I have to matching - (low resources and
| memory-even
| > less than EZ, configurable, never a problem, but large updates
(3MB+) to
| > download - support forum in German but has English for main
issues-no
| > problem as there are other forums)
| >
| > Avg would be good (low resources, configurable, small updates) but
it
| > caused too many problems for me (lock-ups and GPF's). Good user to
user
| > support forum.
| >
| > Avast used a lot of memory and resources, wants to open port 35
using
| DCOM
| > for updating, let me download EICAR test without a peep-could not
use real
| > time file monitoring when browsing. Best thing is its fast and small
| > updates, good support forums.
| >
| > I don't know which I will try next - I am using 98 to test antivirus
for
| XP,
| > since I know more about 98 and can easily remove everything.
| > --
| > mae
| >
| > "MedRxMan" <medrxman@yahoo.com> wrote in message
| > news:uH5c18PeFHA.2700@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
| > | Well, after experiencing problems with my PC I tracked the culprit
to be
| > | McAfee.
| > |
| > | Have temporarily install the trial version of eTrust EZ Armor
which
| > appears
| > | to be good. No computer lockups, download problems and scanner
send to
| > Photo
| > | Deluxe HE. The previous problems were present with McAfee.
| > |
| > | Need advise from MVPs about best programs that use less resources
than
| > | McAfee.
| > |
| > | Is EZ Armor ok, if not why and what should I consider.
| > |
| > | Thanks in advance.
| > |
| > |
| > | BL
| >
|
|
Anonymous
June 26, 2005 9:32:07 PM

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

Never had any issues at all with EZ previously - the default was 4 or 6 hrs
for update but I changed it. I asked them for another version - they
responded with incorrect info. Those bots don't read very well. I found some
registry changes to make but I turn it off most of the time which defeats
the purpose - just use it when on internet or for a full scan. Loaded
another to use other times. There could still be default and a customized
one - after all not everyone is new to computers or use them in the same
manner.

With the enhanced security settings you mention, I see a lot of people
trying to circumvent them. possibly doing so unsafely and not fully aware of
the repercussions.
--
mae

"Gary S. Terhune" <grystnews@mvps.org> wrote in message
news:o OXsZpheFHA.1456@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
| I would agree with you on many of your points. I only had one problem
| with the old EZAV and that was its rather temperamental behavior when
| specifying scheduled updates of short intervals (pretty much anything
| less than a day or few.)
|
| On the other hand, I understand much of the philosophy that I presume
| went into the new interface--the more there is to play with, the more
| the average user is likely to shoot him/herself in the foot. It's an
| increasingly common approach in lots of places, particularly where
| security is concerned. Windows XP SP2 is another example. We MVPs (and
| myriad others) have yelled, screamed and stamped our collective foot for
| years to get MS to change default settings to favor security over "cool
| new features", and now that they've listened and started implementing
| many of our suggestions we're going to have to ease them away from the
| new philosophy of "We're not going to let you do that, at least not
| easily, because it *might* be risky behavior."
|
| --
| Gary S. Terhune
| MS MVP Shell/User
| http://www.grystmill.com/articles/cleanboot.htm
| http://www.grystmill.com/articles/security.htm
|
| "mae" <agrannie@notemail.msn.com> wrote in message
| news:eFBYxMgeFHA.1328@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
| I think you misunderstood - I don't need "all files" all the time. I do
| want when connected to internet and other selectable times only.
| They now have a default with limited choices.
| Every item is individually configurable in old version and I would like
| those options.
| Some they removed:
| view files in detail and sort.
| interface size was adjustable.
| one main toolbar had real access to everything.
| choice of type of scan.
| choice of all files or file types.
| (types which you could add to or remove, not just exclude)
| how you wanted the file monitored.
| If a virus was found it offered many options.
| set your limit on logs
| set time you wanted a reminder if you manually updated.
| keep the update in the event it was needed before the next one.
| showed the date of the last signature file, not just the version.
| Had password, templates, reference disk.
| --
| mae
|
| "MedRxMan" <medrxman@yahoo.com> wrote in message
| news:eGZloRaeFHA.712@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
| | I have found( up to this point) that Trust EZ Armor has not caused ANY
| | problems/conflicts.
| |
| | You mentioned configuration for real time monitoring has been changed.
| I
| | looked at the options and it looks to be there as far as I can see.
| |
| | Here is a copy of the help feature explaining what I see in the
| options
| | pane:
| | Enabling (Options | Real-time Protection | Enabling)
|
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
| | --
| |
| | Enable Real-time floppy disk boot sector protection
| |
| | You can configure the floppy disk protection by selecting Options |
| | Real-time protection | Floppy Boot Sectors.
| |
| | Real-time floppy protection settings
| |
| | Enable Real-time File Monitor (On access file protection)
| |
| | This will allow eTrust EZ Antivirus to automatically check files for
| viruses
| | as they are accessed by Windows.
| |
| | Enable Real-time email monitor (email protection)
| |
| | This will allow eTrust EZ Antivirus to automatically scan email
| messages
| | before they arrive. Any messages containing viruses will be treated
| | according to your Virus Actions configuration.
|
| --------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
| | ---
| | Looks to be able to do what you are complaining about.
| |
| | As I indicated in my original post, I have removed McAfee for many
| issues,
| | ESPECIALLY slow down and lock ups.
| | I actually reformatted the HDD and did a fresh install of
| | Windows98SE,applied all security patches from MS CD and MS Website.
| | installed MS Office PRO 2000 and fully patched it the same way .
| |
| | Added all my usual programs then I installed the trial version of EZ
| Armor
| | and everything running great.
| |
| | My PC has never been as fast as it is running now. Pages on the
| internet
| | load and refresh better than my Laptop with XP Pro.
| |
| | My Laptop has McAfee on it currently and runs well, however assuming
| no
| | future problems with EZ Armor, McAfee will be replaced on the Laptop
| at the
| | end of its license time.
| |
| |
| |
| | "mae" <agrannie@notemail.msn.com> wrote in message
| | news:uXGbkKXeFHA.132@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
| | > Don't use the firewall but the antivirus. and not a MVP.
| | > I have used EZ for years (since it was Cheyenne) and have not found
| any I
| | > like better. It is effective, light on resources and never caused a
| | > conflict/problem of any kind. However they changed the interface and
| | removed
| | > the configuration options so now that I don't like. I want real time
| | > all-file monitoring when connected to internet without effecting
| | performance
| | > (as EZ does) but ability to select different options for other times
| | (which
| | > EZ removed for some strange reason)
| | >
| | > I recently tried Anti-vir, Avast, and Avg. You might try them (or
| | others)
| | > to see which meets your needs.
| | >
| | > Antivir is the closest I have to matching - (low resources and
| | memory-even
| | > less than EZ, configurable, never a problem, but large updates
| (3MB+) to
| | > download - support forum in German but has English for main
| issues-no
| | > problem as there are other forums)
| | >
| | > Avg would be good (low resources, configurable, small updates) but
| it
| | > caused too many problems for me (lock-ups and GPF's). Good user to
| user
| | > support forum.
| | >
| | > Avast used a lot of memory and resources, wants to open port 35
| using
| | DCOM
| | > for updating, let me download EICAR test without a peep-could not
| use real
| | > time file monitoring when browsing. Best thing is its fast and small
| | > updates, good support forums.
| | >
| | > I don't know which I will try next - I am using 98 to test antivirus
| for
| | XP,
| | > since I know more about 98 and can easily remove everything.
| | > --
| | > mae
| | >
| | > "MedRxMan" <medrxman@yahoo.com> wrote in message
| | > news:uH5c18PeFHA.2700@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
| | > | Well, after experiencing problems with my PC I tracked the culprit
| to be
| | > | McAfee.
| | > |
| | > | Have temporarily install the trial version of eTrust EZ Armor
| which
| | > appears
| | > | to be good. No computer lockups, download problems and scanner
| send to
| | > Photo
| | > | Deluxe HE. The previous problems were present with McAfee.
| | > |
| | > | Need advise from MVPs about best programs that use less resources
| than
| | > | McAfee.
| | > |
| | > | Is EZ Armor ok, if not why and what should I consider.
| | > |
| | > | Thanks in advance.
| | > |
| | > |
| | > | BL
| | >
| |
| |
|
Anonymous
June 26, 2005 9:32:08 PM

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

Maybe I'm missing your point. I understood your complaint to be that you
can't configure the current version the way you want to--not that it was
buggy or failing to do its job. In the simplified new version it is
indeed difficult to tweak. But is it actually failing to do its job? Or
is it actually causing any detrimental effects, online or off? I'm
asking honestly--I'm online all the time and using modern machines, but
if the default behavior is causing problems in other environments, I'd
like to know.

I have all of my customers on EZAV, and have yet to hear of or see any
truly detrimental effects with the latest version. And the majority of
them are still on Win9x systems. I'm constantly on the lookout for
updates products that have failed to take older systems into account.

Is the lack of tweakability causing any real problem, or does it just
offend your sensibilities?

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

"mae" <agrannie@notemail.msn.com> wrote in message
news:uTfav7peFHA.3376@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> Never had any issues at all with EZ previously - the default was 4 or
> 6 hrs
> for update but I changed it. I asked them for another version - they
> responded with incorrect info. Those bots don't read very well. I
> found some
> registry changes to make but I turn it off most of the time which
> defeats
> the purpose - just use it when on internet or for a full scan. Loaded
> another to use other times. There could still be default and a
> customized
> one - after all not everyone is new to computers or use them in the
> same
> manner.
>
> With the enhanced security settings you mention, I see a lot of people
> trying to circumvent them. possibly doing so unsafely and not fully
> aware of
> the repercussions.
> --
> mae
>
> "Gary S. Terhune" <grystnews@mvps.org> wrote in message
> news:o OXsZpheFHA.1456@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> | I would agree with you on many of your points. I only had one
> problem
> | with the old EZAV and that was its rather temperamental behavior
> when
> | specifying scheduled updates of short intervals (pretty much
> anything
> | less than a day or few.)
> |
> | On the other hand, I understand much of the philosophy that I
> presume
> | went into the new interface--the more there is to play with, the
> more
> | the average user is likely to shoot him/herself in the foot. It's an
> | increasingly common approach in lots of places, particularly where
> | security is concerned. Windows XP SP2 is another example. We MVPs
> (and
> | myriad others) have yelled, screamed and stamped our collective foot
> for
> | years to get MS to change default settings to favor security over
> "cool
> | new features", and now that they've listened and started
> implementing
> | many of our suggestions we're going to have to ease them away from
> the
> | new philosophy of "We're not going to let you do that, at least not
> | easily, because it *might* be risky behavior."
> |
> | --
> | Gary S. Terhune
> | MS MVP Shell/User
> | http://www.grystmill.com/articles/cleanboot.htm
> | http://www.grystmill.com/articles/security.htm
> |
> | "mae" <agrannie@notemail.msn.com> wrote in message
> | news:eFBYxMgeFHA.1328@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> | I think you misunderstood - I don't need "all files" all the time. I
> do
> | want when connected to internet and other selectable times only.
> | They now have a default with limited choices.
> | Every item is individually configurable in old version and I would
> like
> | those options.
> | Some they removed:
> | view files in detail and sort.
> | interface size was adjustable.
> | one main toolbar had real access to everything.
> | choice of type of scan.
> | choice of all files or file types.
> | (types which you could add to or remove, not just exclude)
> | how you wanted the file monitored.
> | If a virus was found it offered many options.
> | set your limit on logs
> | set time you wanted a reminder if you manually updated.
> | keep the update in the event it was needed before the next one.
> | showed the date of the last signature file, not just the version.
> | Had password, templates, reference disk.
> | --
> | mae
Anonymous
June 27, 2005 8:04:00 PM

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

My personal favorite is AntiVir. It has never let me down, neither at
home nor at work where I advised it to costumers bringing their PCs in
for repairs (most of them were really swarmed with malware, AntiVir
cleaned them up automaticaly).

I also noticed that it is really light on the CPU and never misses
files. With things such as McAfee, you get a lot of resource usage and
it tends to simply miss files being downloaded / copied around / opened,
etc (I could download and save an EICAR without any warning at all).
With AntiVir there is virtrually no slow-down in using it, the slow-down
only noticable when viewing a folder filled with EXE files.

As for firewall, I use a router, so never had much trouble there. If you
got something and it works for you, way the go. I think the main problem
of several software firewalls is that they can be really annoying in
asking questions all the time and/or blocking the wrong stuff.

MedRxMan wrote:
> Well, after experiencing problems with my PC I tracked the culprit to be
> McAfee.
>
> Have temporarily install the trial version of eTrust EZ Armor which appears
> to be good. No computer lockups, download problems and scanner send to Photo
> Deluxe HE. The previous problems were present with McAfee.
>
> Need advise from MVPs about best programs that use less resources than
> McAfee.
>
> Is EZ Armor ok, if not why and what should I consider.
>
> Thanks in advance.


--
Model: INFJ
Primary function: Coprocessor
Secondary function: Cluster commander

Yes I'm a therian:
http://www.wikitherian.org

Powered by Deamons(TM).

....to live your life fast
and powerfull; and then
live your life just to keep
the Deamons at bay.
Anonymous
June 28, 2005 6:03:46 AM

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

Oh no, never an issue with the program in any manner on 98, 98se, XP.
And my sister used with ME successfully.
I don't even see questions on their help boards related to a problem with the program.
I think they changed because of marketing it to be included with cable providers, etc.

I was ticked because I am a dunce if everything is not detailed, and what was usually a 5 min. job and no thought thereafter, became a chore. I never used their firewall - could never understand it, since I was used to simple Kerio rules. (that was a few yrs. ago)
--
mae

"Gary S. Terhune" <grystnews@mvps.org> wrote in message news:uoyQ6YqeFHA.1600@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
| Maybe I'm missing your point. I understood your complaint to be that you
| can't configure the current version the way you want to--not that it was
| buggy or failing to do its job. In the simplified new version it is
| indeed difficult to tweak. But is it actually failing to do its job? Or
| is it actually causing any detrimental effects, online or off? I'm
| asking honestly--I'm online all the time and using modern machines, but
| if the default behavior is causing problems in other environments, I'd
| like to know.
|
| I have all of my customers on EZAV, and have yet to hear of or see any
| truly detrimental effects with the latest version. And the majority of
| them are still on Win9x systems. I'm constantly on the lookout for
| updates products that have failed to take older systems into account.
|
| Is the lack of tweakability causing any real problem, or does it just
| offend your sensibilities?
|
| --
| Gary S. Terhune
| MS MVP Shell/User
| http://www.grystmill.com/articles/cleanboot.htm
| http://www.grystmill.com/articles/security.htm
|
| "mae" <agrannie@notemail.msn.com> wrote in message
| news:uTfav7peFHA.3376@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
| > Never had any issues at all with EZ previously - the default was 4 or
| > 6 hrs
| > for update but I changed it. I asked them for another version - they
| > responded with incorrect info. Those bots don't read very well. I
| > found some
| > registry changes to make but I turn it off most of the time which
| > defeats
| > the purpose - just use it when on internet or for a full scan. Loaded
| > another to use other times. There could still be default and a
| > customized
| > one - after all not everyone is new to computers or use them in the
| > same
| > manner.
| >
| > With the enhanced security settings you mention, I see a lot of people
| > trying to circumvent them. possibly doing so unsafely and not fully
| > aware of
| > the repercussions.
| > --
| > mae
| >
| > "Gary S. Terhune" <grystnews@mvps.org> wrote in message
| > news:o OXsZpheFHA.1456@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
| > | I would agree with you on many of your points. I only had one
| > problem
| > | with the old EZAV and that was its rather temperamental behavior
| > when
| > | specifying scheduled updates of short intervals (pretty much
| > anything
| > | less than a day or few.)
| > |
| > | On the other hand, I understand much of the philosophy that I
| > presume
| > | went into the new interface--the more there is to play with, the
| > more
| > | the average user is likely to shoot him/herself in the foot. It's an
| > | increasingly common approach in lots of places, particularly where
| > | security is concerned. Windows XP SP2 is another example. We MVPs
| > (and
| > | myriad others) have yelled, screamed and stamped our collective foot
| > for
| > | years to get MS to change default settings to favor security over
| > "cool
| > | new features", and now that they've listened and started
| > implementing
| > | many of our suggestions we're going to have to ease them away from
| > the
| > | new philosophy of "We're not going to let you do that, at least not
| > | easily, because it *might* be risky behavior."
| > |
| > | --
| > | Gary S. Terhune
| > | MS MVP Shell/User
| > | http://www.grystmill.com/articles/cleanboot.htm
| > | http://www.grystmill.com/articles/security.htm
| > |
| > | "mae" <agrannie@notemail.msn.com> wrote in message
| > | news:eFBYxMgeFHA.1328@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
| > | I think you misunderstood - I don't need "all files" all the time. I
| > do
| > | want when connected to internet and other selectable times only.
| > | They now have a default with limited choices.
| > | Every item is individually configurable in old version and I would
| > like
| > | those options.
| > | Some they removed:
| > | view files in detail and sort.
| > | interface size was adjustable.
| > | one main toolbar had real access to everything.
| > | choice of type of scan.
| > | choice of all files or file types.
| > | (types which you could add to or remove, not just exclude)
| > | how you wanted the file monitored.
| > | If a virus was found it offered many options.
| > | set your limit on logs
| > | set time you wanted a reminder if you manually updated.
| > | keep the update in the event it was needed before the next one.
| > | showed the date of the last signature file, not just the version.
| > | Had password, templates, reference disk.
| > | --
| > | mae
|
!