Anti Virus/Firewal

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
17 answers Last reply
More about anti virus firewal
  1. 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
  2. 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
    >
    >
  3. 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
    >
    >
  4. 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:OD3mUnReFHA.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
    >>
    >>
    >
    >
  5. 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
  6. 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:OD3mUnReFHA.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
    >>>
    >>>
    >>
    >>
    >
  7. 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
    >
  8. 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
  9. 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
    >
    >
  10. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

    I was actually asking mae, Maybe my question didn't turn up right :-).
  11. 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
    |
    |
  12. 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
    | >
    |
    |
  13. 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
    | >
    |
    |
  14. 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:OOXsZpheFHA.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
    | | >
    | |
    | |
    |
  15. 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:OOXsZpheFHA.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
  16. 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.
  17. 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:OOXsZpheFHA.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
    |
Ask a new question

Read More

McAfee Microsoft Antivirus Windows