Spy Sweeper, McAfee, and SLOOOW Computer

Detection rates.
--

Regards.

Gerry
~~~~
FCA
Stourport, England
Enquire, plan and execute
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Earl Grey wrote:
> Gerry:
>
> You didn't say what the ranking means: Speed? Effectiveness (at
> doing what?) Something else?
>
> Earl Grey
>
> Gerry Cornell wrote:
>> Earl
>>
>> A UK computer magazine conducted tests on the latest versions of
>> 12 leading anti-virus prpgrammes. Symantec was 8th, McAfee 10th
>> and Trend Micro was 11th. These are the three market leaders.
>> Alwil Avast was 12th. Kapersky Lab was 1 and Steganos 2.

Ken

I am likewise cynical but most would not be expected to pan the three
market leaders. I have never seen you recommend Symantec or McAfee.



--

Regards.

Gerry
~~~~
FCA
Stourport, England
Enquire, plan and execute
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



Ken Blake, MVP wrote:
> Gerry Cornell wrote:
>> Earl
>>
>> A UK computer magazine conducted tests on the latest versions of
>> 12 leading anti-virus prpgrammes. Symantec was 8th, McAfee 10th
>> and Trend Micro was 11th. These are the three market leaders.
>> Alwil Avast was 12th. Kapersky Lab was 1 and Steganos 2.
>
>
> I am personally very suspicious of comparison and reviews done by
> computer magazines. These are companies that derive much of their
> income from advertisements, and I therefore don't trust them to
> be even-handed.
> I also have personal experience with reviewers in such magazines.
> A number of years ago, I had a young woman working for me as a
> technical writer. Her previous job was writing product reviews
> for PC Magazine. She wasn't a bad writer, but she could barely
> spell *PC*, and I certainly wouldn't trust her opinions on
> anything technical.
>

Gerry Cornell wrote:

> Ken
>
> I am likewise cynical but most would not be expected to pan the three
> market leaders. I have never seen you recommend Symantec or McAfee.


No, I used to recommend them years ago, but I haven't recommended either in
a long while. I don't know why they panned the market leaders, but I still
don't trust magazines.

To make another point against magazine rankings, different magazines rank in
different orders. PC World, for example, has McAfee second, just behind
BitDefender. Kaspersky, which your magazine has first, was third. See
http://www.pcworld.com/article/124475-1/article.html

And PC Magazine ranks (or at least recently did rank) Norton as best of them
all.

The magazines all have different opinions. They can't all be right Which
should be believed? My answer--none of them. I don't trust any of them.

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


> Ken Blake, MVP wrote:
>> Gerry Cornell wrote:
>>> Earl
>>>
>>> A UK computer magazine conducted tests on the latest versions of
>>> 12 leading anti-virus prpgrammes. Symantec was 8th, McAfee 10th
>>> and Trend Micro was 11th. These are the three market leaders.
>>> Alwil Avast was 12th. Kapersky Lab was 1 and Steganos 2.
>>
>>
>> I am personally very suspicious of comparison and reviews done by
>> computer magazines. These are companies that derive much of their
>> income from advertisements, and I therefore don't trust them to
>> be even-handed.
>> I also have personal experience with reviewers in such magazines.
>> A number of years ago, I had a young woman working for me as a
>> technical writer. Her previous job was writing product reviews
>> for PC Magazine. She wasn't a bad writer, but she could barely
>> spell *PC*, and I certainly wouldn't trust her opinions on
>> anything technical.

You should keep both, One of the easiest ways to free up the ram is to run msconfig and disable spysweeper on start up. Remember this is one of the most powerful programs ever made for anti-spyware. It will kill almost anything. Not long ago the 2 systems didnt blend together, but MSN somehow figured to blend the 2 together recently and so far so good. I'm running xp with mcafee, RUBotted,MSE, & Spy Sweeper on MSN. They are all blending seemlesly together so far.
It's not always what you do, but how you do it.

> On Wednesday, February 21, 2007 6:20 PM Helmu wrote:

> I have both McAfee (all protections) and Spy Sweeper (with Anti Virus, v.5.3)
> loaded on my Dell computer. Start up is VERY SLOW. I have done de-frag,
> general housekeeping (emptying unused files, programs, etc.) nothing seems to
> help much. Any suggestions? Will I be safe if I remove McAfee and just leave
> Spy Sweeper?
> --
> Helmut


>> On Wednesday, February 21, 2007 8:04 PM Earl Grey wrote:

>> Helmut:
>>
>> By themselves, McAfee Total Protection and Spy Sweeper w/Antivirus will
>> cause your computer to start and operate slowly. You have both.
>>
>> Moreover, you should never have two anti-virus programs installed on a
>> computer. The same is becoming increasingly true for anti-spyware
>> programs, too.
>>
>> Choose the program you want and uninstall the other.
>>
>> Earl Grey
>>
>> Helmut wrote:


>>> On Wednesday, February 21, 2007 8:35 PM Ken Blake, MVP wrote:

>>> Earl Grey wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I don't agree. There is nothing wrong with having two or more installed at
>>> once. But there is a lot wrong with having two or more *running* at once.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I disagree vehemently with that statement. One anti-spyware program is
>>> simply not enough. Note that Eric Howes, who has done extensive testing on
>>> Anti-Spyware products, states:
>>>
>>> "No single anti-spyware scanner removes everything. Even the best-performing
>>> anti-spyware scanner in these tests missed fully one quarter of the
>>> "critical" files and Registry entries" See
>>> http://spywarewarrior.com/asw-test-guide.htm
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Ken Blake - Microsoft MVP Windows: Shell/User
>>> Please reply to the newsgroup


>>>> On Wednesday, February 21, 2007 9:37 PM Earl Grey wrote:

>>>> Hi Ken:
>>>>
>>>> I'm glad we can disagree and still be respectful of each other's points
>>>> of view.
>>>>
>>>> As the threats facing users become more and more complex, which they
>>>> unfortunately are, security software has to sink deeper hooks into a
>>>> system. Also, malware is becoming more of a blended threat, so the
>>>> distinctions between viruses and spyware, for example, are beginning to
>>>> blur.
>>>>
>>>> Consequently: Whereas in the past it might have been fine to have two AV
>>>> applications installed if only one was active, that is fast becoming no
>>>> longer true. And whereas in the past it was not only fine, but
>>>> recommended practice to have several 'anti-spyware' applications running
>>>> at the same time, that advice is also starting to fall by the wayside.
>>>>
>>>> Nowadays, many AV and/or AS apps won't even install if they detect the
>>>> presence of similar apps, whether running or not. And the newest version
>>>> of Zone Alarm Security Suite is not the only application that will crash
>>>> under different circumstances in the presence of other AV's and AS's.
>>>>
>>>> (In my particular case, on-demand disk scans crashed vsmon until I
>>>> uninstalled Spy Sweeper, even though it wasn't active at the time.
>>>> Interestingly enough, there are other anti-spyware applications that
>>>> cause no trouble for ZASS.)
>>>>
>>>> It's still possible to combine security software from different vendors,
>>>> but you have to keep on top of what is still compatible with what. I
>>>> have not read any recent advice saying that it's still OK to have to AVs
>>>> on the same computer.
>>>>
>>>> For better or worse, suite solutions are gaining traction over a
>>>> best-of-breed approach, even where a suite combines products from two
>>>> vendors (SS w/AV and ZASS are examples). It comes down to compatibility.
>>>>
>>>> Earl Grey
>>>>
>>>> Ken Blake, MVP wrote:


>>>>> On Thursday, February 22, 2007 11:45 AM Helmu wrote:

>>>>> thanks to both of you for sharing your expertise, this is an interesting
>>>>> back-and-forth! A further note on my situation: I actually tried uninstalling
>>>>> McAfee (after reading some posts that said McAfee hogs resources) and left
>>>>> Spy Sweeper on. My computer was soon after infected with something (Spydawn?)
>>>>> that just took over every time I tried to connect to the internet. I was able
>>>>> to fix this (at least, I THINK I fixed it) by doing a system restore to
>>>>> before I removed McAfee.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think this experience means that Spy Sweeper alone doesn't protect my
>>>>> computer. Ken, if your opinion is not to run more than one at a time, do you
>>>>> have a recommendation about one protection program that really works?
>>>>>
>>>>> Earl Grey, if your opinion is more than one is needed, do you have any
>>>>> recommendations about fixing the REALLY SLOW start up?
>>>>>
>>>>> Any other opinions out there?
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks.
>>>>> --
>>>>> Helmut
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Earl Grey" wrote:


>>>>>> On Thursday, February 22, 2007 12:05 PM Earl Grey wrote:

>>>>>> Hi Helmut:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I won't address your questions to Ken, for whose knowledge and
>>>>>> experience I have great respect, but I will make the following points:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> One of the reasons many experienced users love to hate McAfee and
>>>>>> 'Norton' products is that they can be difficult to uninstall. I have not
>>>>>> had the (dis)pleasure of using McAfee software, so I suggest you get
>>>>>> advice on how to uninstall it completely.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If in fact you have a malware infection it may be due to the fact that
>>>>>> you had two AV products active on your system at the same time. Each AV
>>>>>> program can view the other program as malicious software, so neither can
>>>>>> do their job properly.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> System Restore does NOT fix a malware infection. You need to remove the
>>>>>> malware. That will go a long way toward speeding your startup.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Earl Grey
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Helmut wrote:


>>>>>>> On Thursday, February 22, 2007 2:34 PM Ken Blake, MVP wrote:

>>>>>>> Helmut wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Again I know nothing about Spy Sweeper, and have no comments about it. I do
>>>>>>> not recommend running more than one anti-virus program at a time, but I very
>>>>>>> much *do* recommend using more than one anti-spware product to scan the
>>>>>>> system
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And I do *not* think that that you can rely on "one protection program."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I use all of the following
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Firewall:
>>>>>>> ZoneAlarm free
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Anti-virus:
>>>>>>> Avast
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Anti-spyware:
>>>>>>> Spyware Blaster
>>>>>>> Spybot Search and Destroy
>>>>>>> Adaware
>>>>>>> Windows Defender.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Ken Blake - Microsoft MVP Windows: Shell/User
>>>>>>> Please reply to the newsgroup


>>>>>>>> On Friday, February 23, 2007 11:20 AM Gerry Cornell wrote:

>>>>>>>> Earl
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> A UK computer magazine conducted tests on the latest versions of 12
>>>>>>>> leading anti-virus prpgrammes. Symantec was 8th, McAfee 10th and Trend
>>>>>>>> Micro was 11th. These are the three market leaders. Alwil Avast was
>>>>>>>> 12th. Kapersky Lab was 1 and Steganos 2.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hope this helps.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Gerry
>>>>>>>> ~~~~
>>>>>>>> FCA
>>>>>>>> Stourport, England
>>>>>>>> Enquire, plan and execute
>>>>>>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Earl Grey wrote:


>>>>>>>>> On Friday, February 23, 2007 1:13 PM Earl Grey wrote:

>>>>>>>>> Gerry:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You did not say what the ranking means: Speed? Effectiveness (at doing
>>>>>>>>> what?) Something else?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Earl Grey
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Gerry Cornell wrote:


>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, February 23, 2007 1:27 PM Ken Blake, MVP wrote:

>>>>>>>>>> Gerry Cornell wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I am personally very suspicious of comparison and reviews done by computer
>>>>>>>>>> magazines. These are companies that derive much of their income from
>>>>>>>>>> advertisements, and I therefore don't trust them to be even-handed.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I also have personal experience with reviewers in such magazines. A number
>>>>>>>>>> of years ago, I had a young woman working for me as a technical writer. Her
>>>>>>>>>> previous job was writing product reviews for PC Magazine. She wasn't a bad
>>>>>>>>>> writer, but she could barely spell *PC*, and I certainly wouldn't trust her
>>>>>>>>>> opinions on anything technical.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>> Ken Blake - Microsoft MVP Windows: Shell/User
>>>>>>>>>> Please reply to the newsgroup


>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, February 23, 2007 1:57 PM Gerry Cornell wrote:

>>>>>>>>>>> Detection rates.
>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Regards.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Gerry
>>>>>>>>>>> ~~~~
>>>>>>>>>>> FCA
>>>>>>>>>>> Stourport, England
>>>>>>>>>>> Enquire, plan and execute
>>>>>>>>>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Earl Grey wrote:


>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, February 23, 2007 2:06 PM Gerry Cornell wrote:

>>>>>>>>>>>> Ken
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I am likewise cynical but most would not be expected to pan the three
>>>>>>>>>>>> market leaders. I have never seen you recommend Symantec or McAfee.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Gerry
>>>>>>>>>>>> ~~~~
>>>>>>>>>>>> FCA
>>>>>>>>>>>> Stourport, England
>>>>>>>>>>>> Enquire, plan and execute
>>>>>>>>>>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Ken Blake, MVP wrote:


>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, February 23, 2007 2:36 PM Ken Blake, MVP wrote:

>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gerry Cornell wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, I used to recommend them years ago, but I haven't recommended either in
>>>>>>>>>>>>> a long while. I don't know why they panned the market leaders, but I still
>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't trust magazines.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> To make another point against magazine rankings, different magazines rank in
>>>>>>>>>>>>> different orders. PC World, for example, has McAfee second, just behind
>>>>>>>>>>>>> BitDefender. Kaspersky, which your magazine has first, was third. See
>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.pcworld.com/article/124475-1/article.html
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> And PC Magazine ranks (or at least recently did rank) Norton as best of them
>>>>>>>>>>>>> all.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The magazines all have different opinions. They can't all be right Which
>>>>>>>>>>>>> should be believed? My answer--none of them. I don't trust any of them.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ken Blake - Microsoft MVP Windows: Shell/User
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Please reply to the newsgroup


>>>>>>>>>>>>> Submitted via EggHeadCafe - Software Developer Portal of Choice
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Composite UI Pattern and RAD Development for Data Entry Applications, Part 1
>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.eggheadcafe.com/tutorials...ns-part-1.aspx

You HoopleHead Eggheader: Do you think the OP is coming back to see a reply
to his post from 2007?

"Daniel Stapleton" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> You should keep both, One of the easiest ways to free up the ram is to run
> msconfig and disable spysweeper on start up. Remember this is one of the
> most powerful programs ever made for anti-spyware. It will kill almost
> anything. Not long ago the 2 systems didnt blend together, but MSN somehow
> figured to blend the 2 together recently and so far so good. I'm running
> xp with mcafee, RUBotted,MSE, & Spy Sweeper on MSN. They are all blending
> seemlesly together so far.
> It's not always what you do, but how you do it.
>
>> On Wednesday, February 21, 2007 6:20 PM Helmu wrote:
>
>> I have both McAfee (all protections) and Spy Sweeper (with Anti Virus,
>> v.5.3)
>> loaded on my Dell computer. Start up is VERY SLOW. I have done de-frag,
>> general housekeeping (emptying unused files, programs, etc.) nothing
>> seems to
>> help much. Any suggestions? Will I be safe if I remove McAfee and just
>> leave
>> Spy Sweeper?
>> --
>> Helmut
>
>
>>> On Wednesday, February 21, 2007 8:04 PM Earl Grey wrote:
>
>>> Helmut:
>>>
>>> By themselves, McAfee Total Protection and Spy Sweeper w/Antivirus will
>>> cause your computer to start and operate slowly. You have both.
>>>
>>> Moreover, you should never have two anti-virus programs installed on a
>>> computer. The same is becoming increasingly true for anti-spyware
>>> programs, too.
>>>
>>> Choose the program you want and uninstall the other.
>>>
>>> Earl Grey
>>>
>>> Helmut wrote:
>
>
>>>> On Wednesday, February 21, 2007 8:35 PM Ken Blake, MVP wrote:
>
>>>> Earl Grey wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I don't agree. There is nothing wrong with having two or more installed
>>>> at
>>>> once. But there is a lot wrong with having two or more *running* at
>>>> once.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I disagree vehemently with that statement. One anti-spyware program is
>>>> simply not enough. Note that Eric Howes, who has done extensive
>>>> testing on
>>>> Anti-Spyware products, states:
>>>>
>>>> "No single anti-spyware scanner removes everything. Even the
>>>> best-performing
>>>> anti-spyware scanner in these tests missed fully one quarter of the
>>>> "critical" files and Registry entries" See
>>>> http://spywarewarrior.com/asw-test-guide.htm
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Ken Blake - Microsoft MVP Windows: Shell/User
>>>> Please reply to the newsgroup
>
>
>>>>> On Wednesday, February 21, 2007 9:37 PM Earl Grey wrote:
>
>>>>> Hi Ken:
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm glad we can disagree and still be respectful of each other's
>>>>> points
>>>>> of view.
>>>>>
>>>>> As the threats facing users become more and more complex, which they
>>>>> unfortunately are, security software has to sink deeper hooks into a
>>>>> system. Also, malware is becoming more of a blended threat, so the
>>>>> distinctions between viruses and spyware, for example, are beginning
>>>>> to
>>>>> blur.
>>>>>
>>>>> Consequently: Whereas in the past it might have been fine to have two
>>>>> AV
>>>>> applications installed if only one was active, that is fast becoming
>>>>> no
>>>>> longer true. And whereas in the past it was not only fine, but
>>>>> recommended practice to have several 'anti-spyware' applications
>>>>> running
>>>>> at the same time, that advice is also starting to fall by the wayside.
>>>>>
>>>>> Nowadays, many AV and/or AS apps won't even install if they detect the
>>>>> presence of similar apps, whether running or not. And the newest
>>>>> version
>>>>> of Zone Alarm Security Suite is not the only application that will
>>>>> crash
>>>>> under different circumstances in the presence of other AV's and AS's.
>>>>>
>>>>> (In my particular case, on-demand disk scans crashed vsmon until I
>>>>> uninstalled Spy Sweeper, even though it wasn't active at the time.
>>>>> Interestingly enough, there are other anti-spyware applications that
>>>>> cause no trouble for ZASS.)
>>>>>
>>>>> It's still possible to combine security software from different
>>>>> vendors,
>>>>> but you have to keep on top of what is still compatible with what. I
>>>>> have not read any recent advice saying that it's still OK to have to
>>>>> AVs
>>>>> on the same computer.
>>>>>
>>>>> For better or worse, suite solutions are gaining traction over a
>>>>> best-of-breed approach, even where a suite combines products from two
>>>>> vendors (SS w/AV and ZASS are examples). It comes down to
>>>>> compatibility.
>>>>>
>>>>> Earl Grey
>>>>>
>>>>> Ken Blake, MVP wrote:
>
>
>>>>>> On Thursday, February 22, 2007 11:45 AM Helmu wrote:
>
>>>>>> thanks to both of you for sharing your expertise, this is an
>>>>>> interesting
>>>>>> back-and-forth! A further note on my situation: I actually tried
>>>>>> uninstalling
>>>>>> McAfee (after reading some posts that said McAfee hogs resources) and
>>>>>> left
>>>>>> Spy Sweeper on. My computer was soon after infected with something
>>>>>> (Spydawn?)
>>>>>> that just took over every time I tried to connect to the internet. I
>>>>>> was able
>>>>>> to fix this (at least, I THINK I fixed it) by doing a system restore
>>>>>> to
>>>>>> before I removed McAfee.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think this experience means that Spy Sweeper alone doesn't protect
>>>>>> my
>>>>>> computer. Ken, if your opinion is not to run more than one at a time,
>>>>>> do you
>>>>>> have a recommendation about one protection program that really works?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Earl Grey, if your opinion is more than one is needed, do you have
>>>>>> any
>>>>>> recommendations about fixing the REALLY SLOW start up?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Any other opinions out there?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks.
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Helmut
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Earl Grey" wrote:
>
>
>>>>>>> On Thursday, February 22, 2007 12:05 PM Earl Grey wrote:
>
>>>>>>> Hi Helmut:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I won't address your questions to Ken, for whose knowledge and
>>>>>>> experience I have great respect, but I will make the following
>>>>>>> points:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> One of the reasons many experienced users love to hate McAfee and
>>>>>>> 'Norton' products is that they can be difficult to uninstall. I have
>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>> had the (dis)pleasure of using McAfee software, so I suggest you get
>>>>>>> advice on how to uninstall it completely.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If in fact you have a malware infection it may be due to the fact
>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>> you had two AV products active on your system at the same time. Each
>>>>>>> AV
>>>>>>> program can view the other program as malicious software, so neither
>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>> do their job properly.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> System Restore does NOT fix a malware infection. You need to remove
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> malware. That will go a long way toward speeding your startup.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Earl Grey
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Helmut wrote:
>
>
>>>>>>>> On Thursday, February 22, 2007 2:34 PM Ken Blake, MVP wrote:
>
>>>>>>>> Helmut wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Again I know nothing about Spy Sweeper, and have no comments about
>>>>>>>> it. I do
>>>>>>>> not recommend running more than one anti-virus program at a time,
>>>>>>>> but I very
>>>>>>>> much *do* recommend using more than one anti-spware product to scan
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> system
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And I do *not* think that that you can rely on "one protection
>>>>>>>> program."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I use all of the following
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Firewall:
>>>>>>>> ZoneAlarm free
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Anti-virus:
>>>>>>>> Avast
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Anti-spyware:
>>>>>>>> Spyware Blaster
>>>>>>>> Spybot Search and Destroy
>>>>>>>> Adaware
>>>>>>>> Windows Defender.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> Ken Blake - Microsoft MVP Windows: Shell/User
>>>>>>>> Please reply to the newsgroup
>
>
>>>>>>>>> On Friday, February 23, 2007 11:20 AM Gerry Cornell wrote:
>
>>>>>>>>> Earl
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> A UK computer magazine conducted tests on the latest versions of
>>>>>>>>> 12
>>>>>>>>> leading anti-virus prpgrammes. Symantec was 8th, McAfee 10th and
>>>>>>>>> Trend
>>>>>>>>> Micro was 11th. These are the three market leaders. Alwil Avast
>>>>>>>>> was
>>>>>>>>> 12th. Kapersky Lab was 1 and Steganos 2.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hope this helps.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Gerry
>>>>>>>>> ~~~~
>>>>>>>>> FCA
>>>>>>>>> Stourport, England
>>>>>>>>> Enquire, plan and execute
>>>>>>>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Earl Grey wrote:
>
>
>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, February 23, 2007 1:13 PM Earl Grey wrote:
>
>>>>>>>>>> Gerry:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You did not say what the ranking means: Speed? Effectiveness (at
>>>>>>>>>> doing
>>>>>>>>>> what?) Something else?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Earl Grey
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Gerry Cornell wrote:
>
>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, February 23, 2007 1:27 PM Ken Blake, MVP wrote:
>
>>>>>>>>>>> Gerry Cornell wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I am personally very suspicious of comparison and reviews done
>>>>>>>>>>> by computer
>>>>>>>>>>> magazines. These are companies that derive much of their income
>>>>>>>>>>> from
>>>>>>>>>>> advertisements, and I therefore don't trust them to be
>>>>>>>>>>> even-handed.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I also have personal experience with reviewers in such
>>>>>>>>>>> magazines. A number
>>>>>>>>>>> of years ago, I had a young woman working for me as a technical
>>>>>>>>>>> writer. Her
>>>>>>>>>>> previous job was writing product reviews for PC Magazine. She
>>>>>>>>>>> wasn't a bad
>>>>>>>>>>> writer, but she could barely spell *PC*, and I certainly
>>>>>>>>>>> wouldn't trust her
>>>>>>>>>>> opinions on anything technical.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>> Ken Blake - Microsoft MVP Windows: Shell/User
>>>>>>>>>>> Please reply to the newsgroup
>
>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, February 23, 2007 1:57 PM Gerry Cornell wrote:
>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Detection rates.
>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Gerry
>>>>>>>>>>>> ~~~~
>>>>>>>>>>>> FCA
>>>>>>>>>>>> Stourport, England
>>>>>>>>>>>> Enquire, plan and execute
>>>>>>>>>>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Earl Grey wrote:
>
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, February 23, 2007 2:06 PM Gerry Cornell wrote:
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ken
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am likewise cynical but most would not be expected to pan
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the three
>>>>>>>>>>>>> market leaders. I have never seen you recommend Symantec or
>>>>>>>>>>>>> McAfee.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gerry
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ~~~~
>>>>>>>>>>>>> FCA
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stourport, England
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Enquire, plan and execute
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ken Blake, MVP wrote:
>
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, February 23, 2007 2:36 PM Ken Blake, MVP wrote:
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gerry Cornell wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, I used to recommend them years ago, but I haven't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> recommended either in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a long while. I don't know why they panned the market
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> leaders, but I still
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't trust magazines.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To make another point against magazine rankings, different
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> magazines rank in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different orders. PC World, for example, has McAfee second,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> just behind
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> BitDefender. Kaspersky, which your magazine has first, was
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> third. See
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.pcworld.com/article/124475-1/article.html
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And PC Magazine ranks (or at least recently did rank) Norton
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as best of them
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The magazines all have different opinions. They can't all be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> right Which
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should be believed? My answer--none of them. I don't trust
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any of them.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ken Blake - Microsoft MVP Windows: Shell/User
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Please reply to the newsgroup
>
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Submitted via EggHeadCafe - Software Developer Portal of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Choice
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Composite UI Pattern and RAD Development for Data Entry
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Applications, Part 1
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.eggheadcafe.com/tutorials...ns-part-1.aspx