Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Symantec vs. AVG

Tags:
  • Dell
  • Symantec
  • Windows XP
  • Computers
Last response: in Computer Brands
Share
Anonymous
January 4, 2005 2:32:18 PM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

Dell Dim 2400 with XP Home

I currently have AVG. We were just notified at work that we are authorized
to use Symantec AntiVirus free-of-charge on our home computers.

So, which is better?? Could I keep BOTH on?

MB

More about : symantec avg

Anonymous
January 4, 2005 8:46:04 PM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

Use one or the other, but not both. I would assume that the Symantec AntiVirus
is a corporate version which requires virus updates to be done via the corporate
server, if I recall correctly. No big deal here, just a heads-up on how it
works. One must hope that Symantec provides a higher level of AV support for
the bucks charged to a corporate licensee... Ben Myers

On , "MB_" <mel@prodigy.invalid.net> wrote:

>NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2005 09:42:59 MST
>Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2005 11:32:18 -0500
>Xref: Hurricane-Charley alt.sys.pc-clone.dell:25361
>
>Dell Dim 2400 with XP Home
>
>I currently have AVG. We were just notified at work that we are authorized
>to use Symantec AntiVirus free-of-charge on our home computers.
>
>So, which is better?? Could I keep BOTH on?
>
>MB
>
>
Anonymous
January 4, 2005 8:46:05 PM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

In article <41dad4d8.497722@nntp.charter.net>, ben_myers_spam_me_not @
charter.net (Ben Myers) says...
> Use one or the other, but not both. I would assume that the Symantec AntiVirus
> is a corporate version which requires virus updates to be done via the corporate
> server, if I recall correctly. No big deal here, just a heads-up on how it
> works. One must hope that Symantec provides a higher level of AV support for
> the bucks charged to a corporate licensee... Ben Myers
>
<Snip>

I run Symantec Corporate v9.x and you can do a live update if the
corporate administrator does not lock that feature. I would guess that
they would just give you a disk to take home and install. The corporate
version doesn't require the use of a key as well. I also use AVG Pro
and it does not appear to be as resourse intensive as Norton.

Funny that you mention the fact not to run both. I have had a PC since
1985 and back when AV first started they recommended to run a couple of
them due to the fact that one would catch some that the other wouldn't
and vice versa.

My how times have changed.
Related resources
Anonymous
January 4, 2005 8:46:05 PM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

After having Symantec/Norton drive me insane on my previous Dell, I
made sure to NOT install it on my current home Dell.

Resource intensive and then it would not let me delete it. Currently
run Symantec corporate at the office where I admit it seems to work
fine. But at home I use AVAST.
Anonymous
January 4, 2005 10:54:52 PM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

AV software sometimes gets in the way of other activities, especially software
installs. It does not take a great leap of imagination to think of one AV
package complicating life for another, not to mention the life of the computer
owner... Ben Myers

On Tue, 4 Jan 2005 13:54:00 -0500, Robin Brumfield <rbrumfield@charter.net>
wrote:

>In article <41dad4d8.497722@nntp.charter.net>, ben_myers_spam_me_not @
>charter.net (Ben Myers) says...
>> Use one or the other, but not both. I would assume that the Symantec AntiVirus
>> is a corporate version which requires virus updates to be done via the corporate
>> server, if I recall correctly. No big deal here, just a heads-up on how it
>> works. One must hope that Symantec provides a higher level of AV support for
>> the bucks charged to a corporate licensee... Ben Myers
>>
><Snip>
>
>I run Symantec Corporate v9.x and you can do a live update if the
>corporate administrator does not lock that feature. I would guess that
>they would just give you a disk to take home and install. The corporate
>version doesn't require the use of a key as well. I also use AVG Pro
>and it does not appear to be as resourse intensive as Norton.
>
>Funny that you mention the fact not to run both. I have had a PC since
>1985 and back when AV first started they recommended to run a couple of
>them due to the fact that one would catch some that the other wouldn't
>and vice versa.
>
>My how times have changed.
Anonymous
January 4, 2005 10:54:53 PM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

Ben et. al:

Well, having just gotten a backdoor.Trojan despite what I thought was "safe
hex," I'm a little leery of things now.

As I understand it, from work they will lend me a CD and I can install it on
my home computer. I assume this means I can get the updates.

Question: Is Symantec AV the same as Norton AV??? I know that Norton causes
resource problems in a lot of situations.

My thinking is to keep AVG active (eg: continually monitoring emails, etc.)
but I can run AVG and Symantec to do my scans. Is that being overly
cautious? Or worse, is that kind of set-up asking for trouble (ie: would one
AV interfere with the other under those circumstances)?

Mel



<ben_myers_spam_me_not @ charter.net (Ben Myers)> wrote in message
news:41daf3bb.8405290@nntp.charter.net...
> AV software sometimes gets in the way of other activities, especially
> software
> installs. It does not take a great leap of imagination to think of one AV
> package complicating life for another, not to mention the life of the
> computer
> owner... Ben Myers
>
> On Tue, 4 Jan 2005 13:54:00 -0500, Robin Brumfield
> <rbrumfield@charter.net>
> wrote:
>
>>In article <41dad4d8.497722@nntp.charter.net>, ben_myers_spam_me_not @
>>charter.net (Ben Myers) says...
>>> Use one or the other, but not both. I would assume that the Symantec
>>> AntiVirus
>>> is a corporate version which requires virus updates to be done via the
>>> corporate
>>> server, if I recall correctly. No big deal here, just a heads-up on how
>>> it
>>> works. One must hope that Symantec provides a higher level of AV
>>> support for
>>> the bucks charged to a corporate licensee... Ben Myers
>>>
>><Snip>
>>
>>I run Symantec Corporate v9.x and you can do a live update if the
>>corporate administrator does not lock that feature. I would guess that
>>they would just give you a disk to take home and install. The corporate
>>version doesn't require the use of a key as well. I also use AVG Pro
>>and it does not appear to be as resourse intensive as Norton.
>>
>>Funny that you mention the fact not to run both. I have had a PC since
>>1985 and back when AV first started they recommended to run a couple of
>>them due to the fact that one would catch some that the other wouldn't
>>and vice versa.
>>
>>My how times have changed.
>
Anonymous
January 5, 2005 5:04:01 AM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

In article <nIzCd.53764$BP6.50848@fe06.lga>, mel@prodigy.invalid.net
says...
> Dell Dim 2400 with XP Home
>
> I currently have AVG. We were just notified at work that we are authorized
> to use Symantec AntiVirus free-of-charge on our home computers.
>
> So, which is better?? Could I keep BOTH on?

I had been a VERY LOYAL Norton Anti-Virus user for years and would swear
by it. But I recently ran into a problem that forced me to dump it (a
problem that effects less than 1% of users).

The SYM EVENT driver can randomly reboot your computer if you have more
than 1 gigabyte of system memory and the software program you are
running is allocating memory blocks larger than 1 gigabyte.

I do a LOT of video encoding and I bought a program called DVD Lab to
create home DVDs. I have 4 gigabytes of RAM in my computer and DVD Lab
was using as much as it could to speed up processing. And occasionally
the system would reboot. It drove me nuts.

The blue screen notes indicated that it was a hardware problem, but
after a lot of googling, I tracked it down to this bizarre problem with
SYM EVENT in NAV. I uninstalled NAV and the problem went away.

I'm now using AVG. I'm not as happy with AVG (mostly because I'm not
used to it, I suspect), but at least my computer doesn't reboot.

If and when Symantec fixes the problem with SYM EVENT, I plan to go
back.
Anonymous
January 5, 2005 6:27:14 AM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

On Tue, 4 Jan 2005 13:54:00 -0500, in
<MPG.1c44b0508fbacb5c989680@News.individual.net>, Robin Brumfield
<rbrumfield@charter.net> wrote:

>In article <41dad4d8.497722@nntp.charter.net>, ben_myers_spam_me_not @
>charter.net (Ben Myers) says...
>> Use one or the other, but not both. I would assume that the Symantec AntiVirus
>> is a corporate version which requires virus updates to be done via the corporate
>> server, if I recall correctly. No big deal here, just a heads-up on how it
>> works. One must hope that Symantec provides a higher level of AV support for
>> the bucks charged to a corporate licensee... Ben Myers
>>
><Snip>
>
>I run Symantec Corporate v9.x and you can do a live update if the
>corporate administrator does not lock that feature. I would guess that
>they would just give you a disk to take home and install. The corporate
>version doesn't require the use of a key as well. I also use AVG Pro
>and it does not appear to be as resourse intensive as Norton.
>
>Funny that you mention the fact not to run both. I have had a PC since
>1985 and back when AV first started they recommended to run a couple of
>them due to the fact that one would catch some that the other wouldn't
>and vice versa.
>
>My how times have changed.

Yes... but as I recall, back in 1985 AV programs weren't run
constantly in the background.
Anonymous
January 5, 2005 10:36:53 AM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

If you are a member of the University of Maine system than we are offering
you Symantic Anti Virus Corp. Edition which is very very effective. And no
you don't have to get your updates from our servers. Only on campus people
have to do that. If you live on campus we push out updates twice per day.
If you are off campus and install the product you would get your updates by
using the live update feature.


<ben_myers_spam_me_not @ charter.net (Ben Myers)> wrote in message
news:41dad4d8.497722@nntp.charter.net...
> Use one or the other, but not both. I would assume that the Symantec
> AntiVirus
> is a corporate version which requires virus updates to be done via the
> corporate
> server, if I recall correctly. No big deal here, just a heads-up on how
> it
> works. One must hope that Symantec provides a higher level of AV support
> for
> the bucks charged to a corporate licensee... Ben Myers
>
> On , "MB_" <mel@prodigy.invalid.net> wrote:
>
>>NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2005 09:42:59 MST
>>Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2005 11:32:18 -0500
>>Xref: Hurricane-Charley alt.sys.pc-clone.dell:25361
>>
>>Dell Dim 2400 with XP Home
>>
>>I currently have AVG. We were just notified at work that we are authorized
>>to use Symantec AntiVirus free-of-charge on our home computers.
>>
>>So, which is better?? Could I keep BOTH on?
>>
>>MB
>>
>>
>
Anonymous
January 5, 2005 5:43:38 PM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

In article <3wFCd.53885$zM2.28617@fe06.lga>, mel@prodigy.invalid.net
says...
> Ben et. al:
>
> Well, having just gotten a backdoor.Trojan despite what I thought was "safe
> hex," I'm a little leery of things now.
>
> As I understand it, from work they will lend me a CD and I can install it on
> my home computer. I assume this means I can get the updates.
>
> Question: Is Symantec AV the same as Norton AV??? I know that Norton causes
> resource problems in a lot of situations.
>
> My thinking is to keep AVG active (eg: continually monitoring emails, etc.)
> but I can run AVG and Symantec to do my scans. Is that being overly
> cautious? Or worse, is that kind of set-up asking for trouble (ie: would one
> AV interfere with the other under those circumstances)?
>
> Mel
>


Yes Symantec acquired Norton several years ago and they are the same
product now as far as the AV software goes. You should be able to get
the updates. I know that I can with my installation. As Ben Myers noted
in another post, the installation of AVG and Norton may cause you alot
of grief. It has been many years since I saw a recommendation to run
duplicate AV software. If you have Norton Ghost or some similar disk
image software and an external hard drive, you could ghost your drive
and try it. If it pukes just lay your image back like it was and go
with one or the other. I have Norton at work, AVG on one laptop and F-
Prot, supplied by Charter cable, on the other laptop and have never had
a virus to date (Knock on wood;-). I always practice safe computing
though...hate the web and generally never visit web sites unless doing
research at specific vendors of hardware/software; never open an email
attachment from unknown sources; run spam protection and just dump those
emails; etc.; etc.

See this hobby used to be fun when the Internet and computers were new
but now, they both are a lot of work to keep from getting clobbered.
When I retire, I may get all my assets converted to cash and stuff it
under a mattress and then retreat from the world of technology...:-))
Anonymous
January 5, 2005 5:49:29 PM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

In article <l3nmt01644c1mch8r8tptictboi9dumu5u@4ax.com>, me7@privacy.net
says...
> On Tue, 4 Jan 2005 13:54:00 -0500, in
> <MPG.1c44b0508fbacb5c989680@News.individual.net>, Robin Brumfield
> <rbrumfield@charter.net> wrote:
>
> >In article <41dad4d8.497722@nntp.charter.net>, ben_myers_spam_me_not @
> >charter.net (Ben Myers) says...
> >> Use one or the other, but not both. I would assume that the Symantec AntiVirus
> >> is a corporate version which requires virus updates to be done via the corporate
> >> server, if I recall correctly. No big deal here, just a heads-up on how it
> >> works. One must hope that Symantec provides a higher level of AV support for
> >> the bucks charged to a corporate licensee... Ben Myers
> >>
> ><Snip>
> >
> >I run Symantec Corporate v9.x and you can do a live update if the
> >corporate administrator does not lock that feature. I would guess that
> >they would just give you a disk to take home and install. The corporate
> >version doesn't require the use of a key as well. I also use AVG Pro
> >and it does not appear to be as resourse intensive as Norton.
> >
> >Funny that you mention the fact not to run both. I have had a PC since
> >1985 and back when AV first started they recommended to run a couple of
> >them due to the fact that one would catch some that the other wouldn't
> >and vice versa.
> >
> >My how times have changed.
>
> Yes... but as I recall, back in 1985 AV programs weren't run
> constantly in the background.
>

Those were the DOS days in 1985 and AV wasn't even a happening thing
until about 1994 or so when Windows 3.x first hit the market. I never
dabbled with Windows 1.x/2.x since it was such an unstable system. I
used OS/2 during the time between Windows 1.x/2.x and Windows 3.x.

Anyone remember Mosaic?
Anonymous
January 5, 2005 6:13:56 PM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

The forerunner of Netscape wasn't it.

"Robin Brumfield" <rbrumfield@charter.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c460ed193ac383c989682@News.individual.net...

snipped

> Anyone remember Mosaic?
Anonymous
January 6, 2005 2:03:30 PM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

Robin Brumfield <rbrumfield@charter.net> wrote:


>Anyone remember Mosaic?

IE -> Help -> About
Anonymous
January 6, 2005 5:11:36 PM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

In article <MPG.1c460d75b5061ac7989681@News.individual.net>, Robin Brumfield <rbrumfield@charter.net> wrote:
>In article <3wFCd.53885$zM2.28617@fe06.lga>, mel@prodigy.invalid.net
>says...
>> Ben et. al:
>> Well, having just gotten a backdoor.Trojan despite what I thought was "safe
>> hex," I'm a little leery of things now.
>>
>> As I understand it, from work they will lend me a CD and I can install it on
>> my home computer. I assume this means I can get the updates.
>>
>> Question: Is Symantec AV the same as Norton AV??? I know that Norton causes
>> resource problems in a lot of situations.
>>
>> My thinking is to keep AVG active (eg: continually monitoring emails, etc.)
>> but I can run AVG and Symantec to do my scans. Is that being overly
>> cautious? Or worse, is that kind of set-up asking for trouble (ie: would one
>> AV interfere with the other under those circumstances)?
>
>Yes Symantec acquired Norton several years ago and they are the same
>product now as far as the AV software goes. You should be able to get
>the updates. I know that I can with my installation. As Ben Myers noted
>in another post, the installation of AVG and Norton may cause you alot
>of grief. It has been many years since I saw a recommendation to run
>duplicate AV software. If you have Norton Ghost or some similar disk
>image software and an external hard drive, you could ghost your drive
>and try it. If it pukes just lay your image back like it was and go
>with one or the other. I have Norton at work, AVG on one laptop and F-
>Prot, supplied by Charter cable, on the other laptop and have never had
>a virus to date (Knock on wood;-). I always practice safe computing
>though...hate the web and generally never visit web sites unless doing
>research at specific vendors of hardware/software; never open an email
>attachment from unknown sources; run spam protection and just dump those
>emails; etc.; etc.
>
>See this hobby used to be fun when the Internet and computers were new
>but now, they both are a lot of work to keep from getting clobbered.
>When I retire, I may get all my assets converted to cash and stuff it
>under a mattress and then retreat from the world of technology...:-))

"But you can't hide it under the bed because that's where all the
commos are." ;-)

[Stolen without proper acknowledgement from former Oz socialist PM Bob
Hawke, or was it Paul Keating?]

Cheers, Phred.

--
ppnerkDELETE@THISyahoo.com.INVALID
Anonymous
January 6, 2005 5:17:35 PM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

In article <MPG.1c460ed193ac383c989682@News.individual.net>,
Robin Brumfield <rbrumfield@charter.net> wrote:
[snipped previous thread]
>
>Those were the DOS days in 1985 and AV wasn't even a happening thing
>until about 1994 or so when Windows 3.x first hit the market. I never
>dabbled with Windows 1.x/2.x since it was such an unstable system. I
>used OS/2 during the time between Windows 1.x/2.x and Windows 3.x.
>
>Anyone remember Mosaic?

I've still got a copy on floppy somewhere about the place.

But, of course, I'm currently using the modern incarnation --
Microsoft Internet Explorer 6.0 which is
"Based on NCSA Mosaic. NCSA Mosaic(TM); was developed at the National
Center for Supercomputing Applications at the University of Illinois
at Urbana-Champaign."
as it says in Help/About...

Cheers, Phred.

--
ppnerkDELETE@THISyahoo.com.INVALID
Anonymous
January 6, 2005 10:35:42 PM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

MB_ <mel@prodigy.invalid.net> wrote:
> Dell Dim 2400 with XP Home

> I currently have AVG. We were just notified at work that we are authorized
> to use Symantec AntiVirus free-of-charge on our home computers.

> So, which is better?? Could I keep BOTH on?

Don't run both.

Use AVG. Use Avast. Use FSecure. Use *ANYTHING* except Norton or McAfee.

Oh, the horror stories I could tell you about Norton... Symantec seems to
be on a mission to make Microsoft look like the paragon of quality
software.

Avoid Symantec. Their stuff doesn't work, but they'll happily charge you
a subscription anyways.
Anonymous
January 7, 2005 1:33:05 AM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

We use Symantic Anti Virus Corp. edition on more than 10,000 machines across
our enterprise.
The clients works exceptionally well with no discernible overhead.

I would recommend this product to anyone.

Now the standalone non corp. editions may have problems with the
subscription services, I will acknowledge that.
Maybe its the differance of an enterprize paying $60,000 to license a
product verses the poor smuck who has to deal
with the 29.95 home version, which I find to be very differant.



"Doug Jacobs" <djacobs@shell.rawbw.com> wrote in message
news:10tr4oen23c3n7c@corp.supernews.com...
> MB_ <mel@prodigy.invalid.net> wrote:
>> Dell Dim 2400 with XP Home
>
>> I currently have AVG. We were just notified at work that we are
>> authorized
>> to use Symantec AntiVirus free-of-charge on our home computers.
>
>> So, which is better?? Could I keep BOTH on?
>
> Don't run both.
>
> Use AVG. Use Avast. Use FSecure. Use *ANYTHING* except Norton or
> McAfee.
>
> Oh, the horror stories I could tell you about Norton... Symantec seems to
> be on a mission to make Microsoft look like the paragon of quality
> software.
>
> Avoid Symantec. Their stuff doesn't work, but they'll happily charge you
> a subscription anyways.
Anonymous
January 7, 2005 10:01:50 AM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 19:35:42 -0000, Doug Jacobs
<djacobs@shell.rawbw.com> wrote:

>MB_ <mel@prodigy.invalid.net> wrote:
>> Dell Dim 2400 with XP Home
>
>> I currently have AVG. We were just notified at work that we are authorized
>> to use Symantec AntiVirus free-of-charge on our home computers.
>
>> So, which is better?? Could I keep BOTH on?
>
>Don't run both.
>
>Use AVG. Use Avast. Use FSecure. Use *ANYTHING* except Norton or McAfee.
>
>Oh, the horror stories I could tell you about Norton... Symantec seems to
>be on a mission to make Microsoft look like the paragon of quality
>software.
>
>Avoid Symantec. Their stuff doesn't work, but they'll happily charge you
>a subscription anyways.

My first Dell ( several years ago) came with McAfee. It kept
crashing. Saw some newsgroup traffic about this being caused by
McAfee. I removed it and it fixed the problem. Bought Nortons which
worked reasonably well, except for their AntiFreeze never unfroze
anything.

Just got a new 8400 a few weeks ago. Because of horrid reviews of
both Nortons & McAfee I ordered it with neither 'free' AV software.
It came with McAfee anyway. I'm sending out a number of similar
emails and it flags them as possibly being generated by a worm.
That's nice, but I can't turn that 'feature' off. The Configure
VirusScan Options selection doesn't work - just gives me an error
message. McAfee has been no help.

Looking for something better.

(Fortunately my email comes thru Earthlink dialup and the AV on their
server is catching everything. Couldn't be more happy about that.)
Anonymous
January 8, 2005 12:46:53 AM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

Let me suggest something else based on hard experience. Before installing
another AV product, bend over backwards to make doubly sure that the system is
not infested with spyware, adware, or other malware. Same principle applies
when updating Windows, especially XP SP2... Ben Myers

On Tue, 04 Jan 2005 19:54:52 GMT, ben_myers_spam_me_not @ charter.net (Ben
Myers) wrote:

>AV software sometimes gets in the way of other activities, especially software
>installs. It does not take a great leap of imagination to think of one AV
>package complicating life for another, not to mention the life of the computer
>owner... Ben Myers
>
>On Tue, 4 Jan 2005 13:54:00 -0500, Robin Brumfield <rbrumfield@charter.net>
>wrote:
>
>>In article <41dad4d8.497722@nntp.charter.net>, ben_myers_spam_me_not @
>>charter.net (Ben Myers) says...
>>> Use one or the other, but not both. I would assume that the Symantec AntiVirus
>>> is a corporate version which requires virus updates to be done via the corporate
>>> server, if I recall correctly. No big deal here, just a heads-up on how it
>>> works. One must hope that Symantec provides a higher level of AV support for
>>> the bucks charged to a corporate licensee... Ben Myers
>>>
>><Snip>
>>
>>I run Symantec Corporate v9.x and you can do a live update if the
>>corporate administrator does not lock that feature. I would guess that
>>they would just give you a disk to take home and install. The corporate
>>version doesn't require the use of a key as well. I also use AVG Pro
>>and it does not appear to be as resourse intensive as Norton.
>>
>>Funny that you mention the fact not to run both. I have had a PC since
>>1985 and back when AV first started they recommended to run a couple of
>>them due to the fact that one would catch some that the other wouldn't
>>and vice versa.
>>
>>My how times have changed.
>
June 11, 2009 8:26:41 PM

I have been using AVG since two years and I have no complains regarding it. Some days before I was using ESET NOD32 in my laptop which was only detecting the threat but not deleting them now I am using AVG and my laptop is as fast as it was in the beginnig. So I recommend AVG
September 6, 2009 1:02:34 PM

I had been using Norton for years, but kept getting a virus or two each year. When I bought a new Dell it came with the 90 day free McAfee, and I then paid for a year's subscription. About 6 months later a virus got through and I had to do the old reformat and reinstall of Windows from scratch.

For 4 years now have been using Avast, and nothing has gotten through. Of course using a good firewall and anti-spyware programs, but the point is I would never pay for Norton or McAfee again!

September 7, 2009 6:20:55 AM

My recommendation would be for Malwarebytes and Asquared. They are both free and work great. I have Norton 360 (symantic) as well. The internet security is nice, but not worth the price. I won't be renewing my subscription.
September 8, 2009 9:05:49 PM

There are a lot of competing Av and security products out there but there is absolutely no replacement for smart computing. I do think that most people need to be running something and what that is depends greatly on intended use and where they are using it. Generally speaking, I prefer Vipre because it is far less obtrusive than Symantec or even AVG. Coupled with good computing habits, I don't think most would need more. I generally dislike both Symantec and McAfee products being that they tend to be resource hogs but they do a good job keeping the computer clean most of the time. I suggest only one product running/installed at a time and add to that good computer practices and you'd be just fine.
September 9, 2009 3:49:31 AM

sohaib38 said:
I have been using AVG since two years and I have no complains regarding it. Some days before I was using ESET NOD32 in my laptop which was only detecting the threat but not deleting them now I am using AVG and my laptop is as fast as it was in the beginnig. So I recommend AVG


So why resurrect a four year old thread and comment on it?
And why in the Dell forum? I am sure you can find this debate already covered ad nausem in the Security Software forum.
September 9, 2009 4:21:56 PM

rockyjohn said:
So why resurrect a four year old thread and comment on it?
And why in the Dell forum? I am sure you can find this debate already covered ad nausem in the Security Software forum.

I initially wondered that myself but then I realized that this is still an important question and it still has as much value today as it did when originally posted.
September 9, 2009 5:33:34 PM

^ Agreed.
September 15, 2009 6:34:40 PM

So it is ok to post any subject to any forum as long as it is an important question regardless of subject?

How relevant is 4 year old information on viruses and software to what is happening today?
September 15, 2009 6:37:47 PM

Symantic and AVG are both still around today. They are up to date programs. That makes it still relevant.
September 16, 2009 6:37:16 PM

rockyjohn said:
So it is ok to post any subject to any forum as long as it is an important question regardless of subject?

How relevant is 4 year old information on viruses and software to what is happening today?

What do you mean regardless of subject? We are discussing the subject of the post. Look, if you don't like it, then you don't have to read/contribute to this thread. As aford10 said, both still exist and are very strong, and the original question posed here is valid on this day as it was way back when it was asked. When I build systems for people I usually put on AVG free for them and almost never recommend Symantec or even McAfee. Not because they don't work well but because I find others to work better for my taste. For a paid AV+anti-spyware I really prefer Vipre. If you would like to contribute to this discussion fine, but we definitely are not going to continue to debate the relevance of this issue years later or whether one should post to an old thread. If you want to do that, open your own thread to rant about it.
September 18, 2009 5:07:06 AM

So because the original post was made in the wrong forum that justifies continuing the thread?

And while the question is relevant today, I doubt that 4 year old info about the programs is not. Does anyone really gain anything by sloshing through all of that old info?

So now your response is that its ok to discuss anyting anyone wants on any thread and those who don't want to read can just ignore it? Gee why have separate forums then? Maybe to help direct peolple and make better use of their time? What about all the time wasted before one learns that? Or better yet - just read one of the many reviews that regularly compare AV programs.

What is the problem with just going to the correct forum?

How about this recent one with a poll on best antivirus software?
http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/237983-49-best-antivi...

Or another with recent posts about alternatives to AVG
http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/237519-49-alternative...

Or another asking the question "Do I need an antivirus program?"
http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/237768-49-antivirus-p...

All within the past 30 days - and many more flavors of antivirus issues also discussed which a person sees if they go to the correct forum instead of being misdirected to this one.
September 18, 2009 5:24:58 AM

Not everyone comes straight to the forum. If someone had the question and google searched it, it would bring up this thread.

It's not that big of a deal. It's valid for people now. There is no need for arguing about it.
September 19, 2009 7:55:37 PM

aford10 said:
There is no need for arguing about it.


Then why are you?

I love it when people present their side of a discussion and then say what you did - trying to simulataneously accuse the other person of a negative behavior - arguing - while apparently casting themselve as the voice of reason even while doing the very same thing of which they are accusing the other.

It is also a very disengenuos approach. I raised valid, objective points in the discussion. When I show you wrong - you can't defend them but you won't admit it and instead throw up new bogus reasons and then make a personal attack.
September 20, 2009 3:15:28 AM

You showed me wrong? You didn't show anything. All you did was complain that there was contribution to an old thread. We explained why. That's it. Where's the "personal attack"?

This was never meant to be accusatory. We gave valid information on a subject that is of interest to others. I didn't accuse you of anything. You complaining and getting defensive is turning it into an argument.

This thread would've gone back into the archives if you hadn't come on here and started pissing and moaning.
September 20, 2009 4:10:18 PM

There you go attacking me for starting an argument while again claiming you did not accuse me of anything.

And who is the one being defensive? Again you attack me for what you do. I raised legitimate objections to some of the posting here - it was you that got defensive not me.

And another personal attack that I am "pissing and moaning" again shows the true nature of your attacks. I never did either - I raised legitimate concerns and have only made objective statements while you are the one making personal attacks.

This thread would have gone to archive had you not gotten defensive and kept it going. Again accusing me of what you are doing.
September 20, 2009 9:24:49 PM

As I said, there's no need for an argument.

I posted my 2 cents on this topic. It's no longer a productive conversation. I'm going to respond to those who need help.

I'm deleting the bookmark on this thread.
!