Microsoft Security Essentials
Roy East
Microsoft Security Essentials Anti Virus. Can it be recommended? Also should
I download anything else (bearing in mind I can only get DialUp in this
area).
siljaline
Many are now using MSE, Roy - the question is if your connection can handle the update
packages that are generally available several times daily.
See more here: >
<https://www.microsoft.com/security/portal/Definitions/HowToMSE.aspx>
Good luck with MSE, I hope you enjoy it.
Silj
--
"Arguing with anonymous strangers on the Internet is a sucker's game
because they almost always turn out to be -- or to be indistinguishable from
-- self-righteous sixteen-year-olds possessing infinite amounts of free time."
- Neil Stephenson, _Cryptonomicon_
Roy East
Thank you silj,
I am a dumb dumb when it comes to computers. Questions questions. How do I
tell if I operate a 32bit or 64 bit system? I set MSE to update once per
week, but are you saying I should update daily? Also do I need to download
an Adware program?
Roy
P.S. I like that bit about '"Arguing with anonymous strangers on the
Internet....' So true.
"siljaline" <sp...@uce.gov> wrote in message
news:hhdesv$ckl$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
siljaline
>
> Thank you silj,
> I am a dumb dumb when it comes to computers. Questions questions. How do I
> tell if I operate a 32bit or 64 bit system? I set MSE to update once per
> week, but are you saying I should update daily? Also do I need to download
> an Adware program?
How often you update is up to you, Roy - I suspect several times weekly would be sufficient.
Determine your system build this way >
<http://kb.eset.com/esetkb/index?page=content&id=SOLN523>
They are no current anti-malware programs out there that I currently recommend.
Though MSE has some anti-malware functionality.
Regards,
siljaline
<http://social.answers.microsoft.com/Forums/en-US/category/mse>
David H. Lipman
You would be *much* better off using a combination of Avira AntiVir and Malwarebytes'
Anti-Malware.
--
Dave
http://www.claymania.com/removal-trojan-adware.html
Multi-AV - http://www.pctipp.ch/downloads/dl/35905.asp
David H. Lipman
| From: "Roy East" <roy...@example.invalid>
|| Hi, After recently coming off McFee Anti virus, I have now gone over to
|| Microsoft Security Essentials Anti Virus. Can it be recommended? Also should
|| I download anything else (bearing in mind I can only get DialUp in this
|| area).
| You would be *much* better off using a combination of Avira AntiVir and Malwarebytes'
| Anti-Malware.
PS: Many report MSE puts a load on the system and drags it down.
PajaP
<DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net> wrote:
>
>PS: Many report MSE puts a load on the system and drags it down.
How many is many?
Works really well here. Barely notice it.
Most of the users I know have switched to MSE from Avira or Avast.
Many report problems with Avast and Avira putting a load on the system
when used in combination with malwarebytes.
siljaline
> PS: Many report MSE puts a load on the system and drags it down.
While I have not read of this in these exact words, I am not surprised to hear this.
Phoning home too much, I would think and more.
David H. Lipman
| How many is many?
I have not see ONE statemnt made to thart effect.
I have seen many statemnts to the contrary in various Usenet groups.
Leythos
says...
I like Avira Antivir - I've seen it block malware from sites while
browsing using IE and FireFox where most of the Corporate versions of
the major players didn't even notice or let the machine be compromised.
I specifically went to a couple sites where Symantec End Point
Protection (Corporate version) let the machine get compromised, with
Avira Free edition it detected the malware and blocked it.
--
You can't trust your best friends, your five senses, only the little
voice inside you that most civilians don't even hear -- Listen to that.
Trust yourself.
spam9...@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)
Cronos
> I have not see ONE statemnt made to thart effect.
>
> I have seen many statemnts to the contrary in various Usenet groups.
>
Yea, neither have I and Avira is very light on system resources so I say
he may be a Microsoft employee spreading FUD.
PajaP
wrote:
>David H. Lipman wrote:
>
>> I have not see ONE statemnt made to thart effect.
>>
>> I have seen many statemnts to the contrary in various Usenet groups.
>>
How many is many? I am looking through the likely suspects and I don't
see that many. What do you think the ratio to these posts is to the
amount of installs?
>
>Yea, neither have I and Avira is very light on system resources so I say
I took it off my system and others as it used too many system resources
in combination with MalwareBytes. Though Avast was far worse than Avira.
>he may be a Microsoft employee spreading FUD.
Sigh.... Pathetic.
I could reply with "You sound more like an MalwareBytes and Avira shill
to me", but I won't.
MalwareBytes is good for cleaning up an infection but used too many
resources on mine to have it running (and yes I did buy it).
Either way I find having one program running (MSE) uses less resources
on my system than MalwareBytes and either Avira or Avast.
That is what I found which I why I use MSE and one of the reasons
**many** others do.
Cronos
> I took it off my system and others as it used too many system resources
> in combination with MalwareBytes. Though Avast was far worse than Avira.
I have free versions of Malwarebytes and Avira so no added resources
used by Malwarebytes because free version has no TSR and free version of
Avira does not scan web sites so it doesn't slow web browsing down like
all AVs I have tried do when they protect your browsing. I use noscript
and adblock+ in FF so have little to worry about with bad wwebsites. I
can run games with Avira running and no noticed slow down even. MSE on
the other hand slows down the Windows explorer even and is why I
stopped using it. Avira doesn't, none that I can detect anyway.
You can set Malwarebytes not to run in the background.
PajaP
wrote:
I have installed MSE on numerous systems and not had any issues with it.
Others that have installed it on my recommendation have had no issues
with it. Some of these same people have complained both Avira and Avast
have caused issue on the same systems especially with MalwareBytes
running too.
MSE obviously works on a much higher percentage of systems without
issues. The same would apply to Avira, Avast and MalwareBytes.
Everyone's system is different.
Does now make someone an MS shill just because they prefer an MS product
and are not afraid to recommend it here.
>You can set Malwarebytes not to run in the background.
Which I have done. Some might call this a waste of money buying the full
product though.
I also have the same FF set-up as yourself :)
Cronos
> I have installed MSE on numerous systems and not had any issues with it.
Single core cpu or multi core? On my single core AMD64 it was quite
noticable but on dual core it was ok. I have quad core now too so would
probably run well there. Even on dual core I could tell it was causing a
slight slow down in explorer. Hoenstly, I never notice any such slow
down with Avira.
> Which I have done. Some might call this a waste of money buying the full
> product though.
Yes, and is why I would rather have the free version. I don't want to
pay for features I won't use. I can get one year 3 license of Kaspersky
right now for $9.99 but I used it before and while the AV is god I don't
like the firewall at all. Too much hassle and prefer the simple one that
comes with Windows.
David H. Lipman
| PajaP wrote:
LOL
It probably has to more to do with the AMD CPU :-(
Dustin Cook
news:hhel0...@news3.newsguy.com:
> From: "Cronos" <cro...@sphere.invalid>
>
>| PajaP wrote:
>
>>> I have installed MSE on numerous systems and not had any issues with
>>> it.
>
>| Single core cpu or multi core? On my single core AMD64 it was quite
>| noticable but on dual core it was ok. I have quad core now too so
>| would probably run well there. Even on dual core I could tell it was
>| causing a slight slow down in explorer. Hoenstly, I never notice any
>| such slow down with Avira.
>
>>> Which I have done. Some might call this a waste of money buying the
>>> full product though.
>
>| Yes, and is why I would rather have the free version. I don't want to
>| pay for features I won't use. I can get one year 3 license of
>| Kaspersky right now for $9.99 but I used it before and while the AV
>| is god I don't like the firewall at all. Too much hassle and prefer
>| the simple one that comes with Windows.
>
> LOL
> It probably has to more to do with the AMD CPU :-(
>
As much as I enjoy the AMD beside me for doing some things much faster
than my old dual I work with (which I'm typing this on), the dual still
lets me have more things going on; the AMD really slows down if you have
it busy with more than 2 or 3 things. <G>
--
Dustin Cook [Malware Researcher]
MalwareBytes - http://www.malwarebytes.org
Leythos
only.co.uk.invalid says...
> >Yea, neither have I and Avira is very light on system resources so I say
>
> I took it off my system and others as it used too many system resources
> in combination with MalwareBytes. Though Avast was far worse than Avira.
>
I've used everything on the market, Avira is light on system resources
if you get the Antivirus/Malware version, not using the one with the
firewall and such.
Leythos
only.co.uk.invalid says...
> MSE obviously works on a much higher percentage of systems without
> issues. The same would apply to Avira, Avast and MalwareBytes.
> Everyone's system is different.
> Does now make someone an MS shill just because they prefer an MS product
> and are not afraid to recommend it here.
>
Microsoft didn't write MSE, it's a company they bought, so it's no more
likely to work "better" or "higher" on any computer than any other
product. For proof, just look at Service Packs and Updates, something
that MS does write, and how many machines are negatively impacted by
those.
Why would you trust MS to protect your computer, with another product,
when they didn't protect it in the first place?
PajaP
wrote:
>In article <a5blj59hfqb7p29pr...@4ax.com>, pajap@news-
>only.co.uk.invalid says...
>> MSE obviously works on a much higher percentage of systems without
>> issues. The same would apply to Avira, Avast and MalwareBytes.
>> Everyone's system is different.
>> Does now make someone an MS shill just because they prefer an MS product
>> and are not afraid to recommend it here.
>>
>
>Microsoft didn't write MSE, it's a company they bought, so it's no more
>likely to work "better" or "higher" on any computer than any other
>product.
I never said it would more than any other product. Those are your words.
I was comparing the amount of systems it works on to those it does not.
I really do not care how they acquired this or any other product and it
has no relevance to this discussion.
>For proof, just look at Service Packs and Updates, something
>that MS does write, and how many machines are negatively impacted by
>those.
Irrelevant. Though I dare say the percentage of machines that are
impacted negatively is far lower those that are not.
>Why would you trust MS to protect your computer, with another product,
>when they didn't protect it in the first place?
Why would I not? Unlike yourself who chooses to slate everything MS, I
choose my own experiences to make my own decisions. You are a known MS
basher and as such I ignore most of what you write, which is probably a
shame (but I prefer to ignore those with obvious bias).
PajaP
wrote:
>In article <qp1lj592qhsqhc44e...@4ax.com>, pajap@news-
>only.co.uk.invalid says...
>> >Yea, neither have I and Avira is very light on system resources so I say
>>
>> I took it off my system and others as it used too many system resources
>> in combination with MalwareBytes. Though Avast was far worse than Avira.
>>
>
>I've used everything on the market, Avira is light on system resources
>if you get the Antivirus/Malware version, not using the one with the
>firewall and such.
I am sure this is correct on your system. Not on mine. MSE uses the
least on mine. It is also the least intrusive.
Leythos
only.co.uk.invalid says...
>
> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 08:52:59 -0500, Leythos <spam9...@rrohio.com>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <a5blj59hfqb7p29pr...@4ax.com>, pajap@news-
> >only.co.uk.invalid says...
> >> MSE obviously works on a much higher percentage of systems without
> >> issues. The same would apply to Avira, Avast and MalwareBytes.
> >> Everyone's system is different.
> >> Does now make someone an MS shill just because they prefer an MS product
> >> and are not afraid to recommend it here.
> >>
> >
> >Microsoft didn't write MSE, it's a company they bought, so it's no more
> >likely to work "better" or "higher" on any computer than any other
> >product.
>
> I never said it would more than any other product. Those are your words.
> I was comparing the amount of systems it works on to those it does not.
> I really do not care how they acquired this or any other product and it
> has no relevance to this discussion.
Yes, it does, it's very relevant - you implied that because it was from
Microsoft that it would likely run on a "higher" percentage of machines
with less trouble - that's not true based on many decades of experience
with Microsoft and the vendors they purchase.
>
> >For proof, just look at Service Packs and Updates, something
> >that MS does write, and how many machines are negatively impacted by
> >those.
>
> Irrelevant. Though I dare say the percentage of machines that are
> impacted negatively is far lower those that are not.
Again, it is VERY relevant - it shows that MS is not building apps that
are more stable or less troublesome than the non-MS vendors, and MS has
the inside scoop on their OS.
> >Why would you trust MS to protect your computer, with another product,
> >when they didn't protect it in the first place?
>
> Why would I not? Unlike yourself who chooses to slate everything MS, I
> choose my own experiences to make my own decisions. You are a known MS
> basher and as such I ignore most of what you write, which is probably a
> shame (but I prefer to ignore those with obvious bias).
You're wrong about my view on MS - I make a TON of money by building
enterprise MS solutions all over the country and I have 20+ MS OS
machines in my home, and several Linux ones.
I am not a "known MS basher" at all - I'm very honest and very
realistic. I love XP and server 2003/2008 and love Win 7 (don't care for
Vista).
There is no BIAS on my part, but yours is clearly showing.
MS has proven time and time again that they can't secure the OS
platform, even with their own antimalware tools, there has never been a
case to trust them to build another app to protect the OS.
Comprehend what I've written exactly as I write it, don't guess that I
mean something other than what I've written.
Leythos
only.co.uk.invalid says...
Please describe YOUR system, CPU, Memory, Drive types/speed, available
FREE resources....
Open Task Manager and tell us how much memory and CPU MSE is using on
startup and then after it's settled down....
Leythos
Oh, and since I asked you about yours, here are my specs on a simple
machine:
P4/3.2ghz Hyper threaded, 2GB RAM, XP Pro + SP3 and all updates, 500GB
SATA 7200 RPM:
After boot, after the initial boot scan, system, with Gravity and
Outlook open, with Avira, Skype, Yahoo IM, Logitec Cam, Ati, VNC running
in the background, 513MB of 2096MB in use, 1% CPU load, Avguard.exe
using 392k, Avgnt.exe using 1.372k.
PajaP
wrote:
>In article <sgnmj5par0m0bjq6t...@4ax.com>, pajap@news-
>only.co.uk.invalid says...
>>
>> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 08:50:38 -0500, Leythos <spam9...@rrohio.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <qp1lj592qhsqhc44e...@4ax.com>, pajap@news-
>> >only.co.uk.invalid says...
>> >> >Yea, neither have I and Avira is very light on system resources so I say
>> >>
>> >> I took it off my system and others as it used too many system resources
>> >> in combination with MalwareBytes. Though Avast was far worse than Avira.
>> >>
>> >
>> >I've used everything on the market, Avira is light on system resources
>> >if you get the Antivirus/Malware version, not using the one with the
>> >firewall and such.
>>
>> I am sure this is correct on your system. Not on mine. MSE uses the
>> least on mine. It is also the least intrusive.
>
>Please describe YOUR system, CPU, Memory, Drive types/speed, available
>FREE resources....
>
>Open Task Manager and tell us how much memory and CPU MSE is using on
>startup and then after it's settled down....
Why? My system is running fine. I require no support.
PajaP
wrote:
>In article <73nmj51f89vjffjhi...@4ax.com>, pajap@news-
>only.co.uk.invalid says...
>>
>> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 08:52:59 -0500, Leythos <spam9...@rrohio.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <a5blj59hfqb7p29pr...@4ax.com>, pajap@news-
>> >only.co.uk.invalid says...
>> >> MSE obviously works on a much higher percentage of systems without
>> >> issues. The same would apply to Avira, Avast and MalwareBytes.
>> >> Everyone's system is different.
>> >> Does now make someone an MS shill just because they prefer an MS product
>> >> and are not afraid to recommend it here.
>> >>
>> >
>> >Microsoft didn't write MSE, it's a company they bought, so it's no more
>> >likely to work "better" or "higher" on any computer than any other
>> >product.
>>
>> I never said it would more than any other product. Those are your words.
>> I was comparing the amount of systems it works on to those it does not.
>> I really do not care how they acquired this or any other product and it
>> has no relevance to this discussion.
>
>Yes, it does, it's very relevant - you implied that because it was from
>Microsoft that it would likely run on a "higher" percentage of machines
>with less trouble - that's not true based on many decades of experience
>with Microsoft and the vendors they purchase.
No I did not. You misunderstood it.
I have already told you what I meant but as you seem to have a bit of a
problem I will quote it for you (in case you cannot look a few lines
up):
"I was comparing the amount of systems it works on to those it does
not".
Obviously I am talking about a percentage of the systems with a problem
as a ratio to those have no problem.
<snip>
>Comprehend what I've written exactly as I write it, don't guess that I
>mean something other than what I've written.
When you do the same.
Leythos
You made a claim, that Avira loads down your system, that MSE doesn't, I
just wondered what your system specs are so that we might learn
something from your situation instead of just ramblings.
Daave
> Why would you trust MS to protect your computer, with another product,
> when they didn't protect it in the first place?
I like your logic. :-)
Daave
I, too, would like to see that claim backed up. I have a hard time
(based on experience and noting CPU loads and RAM usage) accepting the
idea that Avira (the basic, free version) is not feather-light on a
system! Also, it would be helpful to see how MSE compares to it with
regard to using resources/RAM. Perhaps there is a realistic minimum
needed to run it (amount of RAM, type and speed of CPU).
To PajaP, it would be helpful to other people in this newsgroup to tell
us your system's specs, etc. This way, we can detemine a realistic
minimum set of specs to run MSE. And for those who have older PCs, it
would be logical to recommend programs like Avira (which *is* light on
resources) to them.
Daave
> David H. Lipman wrote:
>> PS: Many report MSE puts a load on the system and drags it down.
>
> While I have not read of this in these exact words, I am not
> surprised to hear this.
> Phoning home too much, I would think and more.
"Phoning home" implies spyware. That is not the same thing as ensuring
you have the most up-to-date antivirus definitions downloaded and
installed!
PajaP
wrote:
>You made a claim
Not a claim. A fact. I have no need to BS.
>that Avira loads down your system, that MSE doesn't
That fact is: Resident protection of Avira or Avast when used together
with the resident protection in Malwarebytes Antimalware uses more
resources on my PC than just Resident MSE alone.
This was in a working situation which is what I am mostly concerned
with. In saying that with MSE installed my system does get to a useable
state a bit quicker than with any of the other combinations I have tried
(though we are talking a few seconds).
Mine is not the only system I have encountered this on.
I would not describe either of the combinations to be a problem and all
combinations worked with little issue.
Though MSE causes least load and I do not notice any performance hit
when it is running.
The other combinations I do notice a slight performance hit when they
are running to when they are not.
MSE does not nag me so much (at all). These are the reasons (less
resources and no nagging) I chose to use MSE over any of the other
combinations. The other software stays installed, just without any
memory resident components running (just in case I may ever have need to
use them).
If MSE ever causes me any issues then it will be removed if there is no
quick fix available. If I see any other software that appears to meet my
needs as much as MSE then I will trial it (whether it is from MS or any
other vendor).
>I just wondered what your system specs are so that we might
>learn something from your situation
There is nothing to learn as I have no "situation".
My system is fairly new and built by myself with all my chosen
components (though these do occasionally change). It works for its
intended purpose (web, email etc and image and video editing).
In short (the bits that matter):
Intel Core 2 Duo E8400 3GHz
Asus P5Q-E
8GB DDR2 OCZ
Radeon HD 4890
4 X 1TB Samsung SATA
Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit Retail
To conclude, for me (and others I know), with all memory resident
components running, MSE works better, performance wise, than either
Avira or Avast running in combination with Malwarebytes Antimalware.
I accept others may have different experiences.
Here's hoping this clears it all up.
Leythos
And you just said the same thing I wrote - you assert that MSE runs more
stable on more machines than the non MSE programs.
So, it works, MSE, on more systems than other products, do you mean it's
"installed" instead of "works"? I don't think you meant INSTALLED, I
think you clearly mean that MSE is more stable on more machines than
other products.
I do not believe your statement based on the thousands of machines I
work with each year.
> <snip>
>
> >Comprehend what I've written exactly as I write it, don't guess that I
> >mean something other than what I've written.
>
> When you do the same.
Now you see the problem, you've stated exactly what I paraphrased. If
you mean that MSE is 'Installed' on more machines instead of 'stable' on
more machines....
I see that you've not posted your system spec's again, which are very
relevant to this discussion - why not post them, what do you hope to
gain by not describing your system and resources?
Buffalo
Leythos wrote:
> Oh, and since I asked you about yours, here are my specs on a simple
> machine:
>
> P4/3.2ghz Hyper threaded, 2GB RAM, XP Pro + SP3 and all updates, 500GB
> SATA 7200 RPM:
>
> After boot, after the initial boot scan, system, with Gravity and
> Outlook open, with Avira, Skype, Yahoo IM, Logitec Cam, Ati, VNC
> running in the background, 513MB of 2096MB in use, 1% CPU load,
> Avguard.exe using 392k, Avgnt.exe using 1.372k.
Leythos, on my system:
AMD 2GHz Athlon, 1GB of DDRram, Win2000Pro SP4, IDE 7600rpm120GBMaxtor HDD
and with only OE and SAS open, my avgnt.exe is using 1.576MB and my
avguard.exe is using 2.032MB. (I use the free version of Avira)
SAS (running in real time) is using between 364 and 490kb of memory.
Buffalo
Leythos
only.co.uk.invalid says...
>
> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 10:24:18 -0500, Leythos <spam9...@rrohio.com>
> wrote:
>
> >You made a claim
>
> Not a claim. A fact. I have no need to BS.
>
> >that Avira loads down your system, that MSE doesn't
>
> That fact is: Resident protection of Avira or Avast when used together
> with the resident protection in Malwarebytes Antimalware uses more
> resources on my PC than just Resident MSE alone.
Duh, two programs using more resources than 1 program - who would have
guessed that one.
> This was in a working situation which is what I am mostly concerned
> with. In saying that with MSE installed my system does get to a useable
> state a bit quicker than with any of the other combinations I have tried
> (though we are talking a few seconds).
> Mine is not the only system I have encountered this on.
Why would you run MBAM in "resident" mode if you already have Avira?
Why are you trusting MSE as a stand alone product if you don't trust
Avira alone?
You're not looking at apples and apples in your example.
> I would not describe either of the combinations to be a problem and all
> combinations worked with little issue.
> Though MSE causes least load and I do not notice any performance hit
> when it is running.
> The other combinations I do notice a slight performance hit when they
> are running to when they are not.
From the MSE website: "Microsoft Security Essentials provides real-time
protection for your home PC that guards against viruses, spyware, and
other malicious software."
Avira Antivir - read their site, it does/offers MORE protection. Avira
stops all types of viruses, ad/spyware, phising, rootkits, web/email
malware blocking, malicious websites....
> MSE does not nag me so much (at all). These are the reasons (less
> resources and no nagging) I chose to use MSE over any of the other
> combinations. The other software stays installed, just without any
> memory resident components running (just in case I may ever have need to
> use them).
So, if you look at Avira vs MSE, Avira does more, better, and doesn't
load the system down. Your adding MBAM to the Avira example is unfair
and shows that you didn't actually evaluate the MSE properly - to be
fair you should load MBAM Resident with MSE and test again.
> If MSE ever causes me any issues then it will be removed if there is no
> quick fix available. If I see any other software that appears to meet my
> needs as much as MSE then I will trial it (whether it is from MS or any
> other vendor).
But MSE doesn't offer the level of protection that Avira does, and if MS
can't secure their OS, what makes you think they can write an app to
secure it?
>
> >I just wondered what your system specs are so that we might
> >learn something from your situation
>
> There is nothing to learn as I have no "situation".
> My system is fairly new and built by myself with all my chosen
> components (though these do occasionally change). It works for its
> intended purpose (web, email etc and image and video editing).
>
> In short (the bits that matter):
> Intel Core 2 Duo E8400 3GHz
> Asus P5Q-E
> 8GB DDR2 OCZ
> Radeon HD 4890
> 4 X 1TB Samsung SATA
> Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit Retail
>
> To conclude, for me (and others I know), with all memory resident
> components running, MSE works better, performance wise, than either
> Avira or Avast running in combination with Malwarebytes Antimalware.
> I accept others may have different experiences.
>
> Here's hoping this clears it all up.
Yep, it shows that you didn't evaluate the two solutions equally, to be
fair you should retest with MBAM resident loaded with MSE and then
report back your findings.
If you are comfortable using MSE alone, when it provides less protection
than Avira, well, so be it.
PajaP
wrote:
>If you are comfortable using MSE alone, when it provides less protection
>than Avira, well, so be it.
MSE meets my needs. It performs better on my PC.
End of.
PajaP
wrote:
>I do not believe your statement based on the thousands of machines I
>work with each year.
This is not some sort of pissing contest. I do not care how many systems
you claim to work with each year. Get over yourself.
>Now you see the problem, you've stated exactly what I paraphrased. If
>you mean that MSE is 'Installed' on more machines instead of 'stable' on
>more machines....
I mean no matter how many machines it is installed on, the vast majority
of them will have no issues.
>I see that you've not posted your system spec's again, which are very
>relevant to this discussion - why not post them, what do you hope to
>gain by not describing your system and resources?
I have posted my system specs now though I do not see this as relevant.
I am not going to start checking resources at regular intervals. I know
when my system is running differently without checking any pretty
graphs.
I am certainly not going to visit all the other machines where people
have told me their system works better with MSE (instead of
alternatives), after I or they installed it. Though I know some are much
less well specced than mine (similar systems to your own) and a few are
higher specced.
siljaline
> "Phoning home" implies spyware. That is not the same thing as ensuring
> you have the most up-to-date antivirus definitions downloaded and
> installed!
If you can't control how many times your own up phones-MS your IP, Browser, OS, etc,
that's phoning home.
You wouldn't catch me dead running MSE, the first build of,Windows Defender, was another
animal, from a different Zoo.
End Game.
Silj
--
"Arguing with anonymous strangers on the Internet is a sucker's game
because they almost always turn out to be -- or to be indistinguishable from
-- self-righteous sixteen-year-olds possessing infinite amounts of free time."
- Neil Stephenson, _Cryptonomicon_
Leythos
only.co.uk.invalid says...
> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 11:18:42 -0500, Leythos <spam9...@rrohio.com>
> wrote:
>
> >I do not believe your statement based on the thousands of machines I
> >work with each year.
>
> This is not some sort of pissing contest. I do not care how many systems
> you claim to work with each year. Get over yourself.
>
Paja, you should look in a mirror.
This was a "discussion" as far as I was concerned, but you've accused me
of being a MS Basher (which is a complete lie), accused me of being in
some pissing contest with you (which is a complete lie) and now you've
suggested that I'm doing this because I'm big headed.
You made the claim that MSE was more stable and lower on resources than
Avira, then you added the Avira + MBAM Resident, but you also said that
you only tested MSE without MBAM resident - which shows that you didn't
actually, fairly, look at MSE vs Avira.
I don't care what you run on your computer, but I do care about
misinformation.
PajaP
wrote:
>I don't care what you run on your computer, but I do care about
>misinformation.
It is not misinformation. It is my experiences and it is true. Nothing
can change that.
My testing was not flawed. I choose not to test MalwareBytes with MSE
but am sure it would still perform better than Avira with MalwareBytes.
I trust MSE without any additional spyware.
I did not trust Avira Free without additional software.
I am certain that MSE works better for me.
If you are so concerned why don't you test it and let us know.
Won't matter one diddly squat to me though because that will be on your
system and not mine.
Sorry if I offended you by saying you had a problem with MS but your
posts indicate this. As do posts where you find a need to inform people
about how many systems you manage indicate some sort of pissing contest.
I would imagine a lot of people here do similar and find no need to
mention it. It is irrelevant and even if it were relevant can only be
taken a face value.
For the record, yes I do trust MS to protect my system (both their
firewall product and MSE are more than adequate). I have no issue with
MS and find their software works well enough for me.
I am sure there are other packages out there that would seemingly offer
me more, if I pay. I do not need more and choose not to buy or install
them, at this time. Might this change? Maybe.
But I stand by my claim that MSE is currently the best software for **my
**system.
Leythos
only.co.uk.invalid says...
>
> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 12:01:37 -0500, Leythos <spam9...@rrohio.com>
> wrote:
>
> >I don't care what you run on your computer, but I do care about
> >misinformation.
>
> It is not misinformation. It is my experiences and it is true. Nothing
> can change that.
> My testing was not flawed. I choose not to test MalwareBytes with MSE
> but am sure it would still perform better than Avira with MalwareBytes.
> I trust MSE without any additional spyware.
> I did not trust Avira Free without additional software.
> I am certain that MSE works better for me.
Your testing IS flawed, you admit so by staying that one product
combination doesn't perform well on your computer, but you don't test
with the key components when you test another product.
For proper testing, to make your claim valid, you would have to test as
follows:
Avira Antiver + MBAM Resident
MSE + MBAM Resident
Without the above tests you have "speculation" and "guesses" about
performance when you state that MSE works better than Avira + MBAM.
> If you are so concerned why don't you test it and let us know.
> Won't matter one diddly squat to me though because that will be on your
> system and not mine.
That you didn't fairly test shows that your methodology is flawed, so it
stands to reason that anything you post of a technical nature might also
be flawed - even more so, since you're unable to see the flaw in your
testing/analysis.
[snip]
> For the record, yes I do trust MS to protect my system (both their
> firewall product and MSE are more than adequate). I have no issue with
> MS and find their software works well enough for me.
And you'e been responded to by people that have tested it on far more
machines that you appear to have access to, people that have said that
your results are not what they see, that your analysis wasn't valid
because of your not testing apples/apples, and that none of us truse MSE
vs. other products - which is real world, time proven, accurate testing
an experience.
> I am sure there are other packages out there that would seemingly offer
> me more, if I pay. I do not need more and choose not to buy or install
> them, at this time. Might this change? Maybe.
>
> But I stand by my claim that MSE is currently the best software for **my
> **system.
Don't take this wrong, I'm not saying this as an insult, but your
analysis is flawed and based on willful ignorance.
PajaP
wrote:
>Don't take this wrong, I'm not saying this as an insult, but your
>analysis is flawed and based on willful ignorance.
I was one step ahead of you.
MSE and MalwareBytes working together flawlessly, so far and both are
resident.
The performance is definitely much better than when Avira Free and
MalwareBytes were both running resident.
Not sure what will happen if some spyware is detected though.
Better test this when I get the chance if I am to keep both.
Still I do not think there is much point in keeping it running, as MSE
will work well enough on its own.
Looks like it was Avira that was the resource hog on my system.
Leythos
only.co.uk.invalid says...
>
> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 13:21:54 -0500, Leythos <spam9...@rrohio.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Don't take this wrong, I'm not saying this as an insult, but your
> >analysis is flawed and based on willful ignorance.
>
> I was one step ahead of you.
> MSE and MalwareBytes working together flawlessly, so far and both are
> resident.
Thanks - until this you had indicated you had not used BOTH at the same
time.
>
> The performance is definitely much better than when Avira Free and
> MalwareBytes were both running resident.
>
> Not sure what will happen if some spyware is detected though.
> Better test this when I get the chance if I am to keep both.
> Still I do not think there is much point in keeping it running, as MSE
> will work well enough on its own.
>
> Looks like it was Avira that was the resource hog on my system.
It would be interesting to know what Avira in combination with other
things caused the resource issue.
I have a Dual CPU system with 32GB RAM, a test box, running Win 7 Prof
64 bit and Avira free, I didn't notice any difference between it running
Avira and having no-AV/anti-malware tools installed.
That's one of the reasons I asked about your hardware, to try and see
why you were seeing the performance issue when others are not - I'll see
if I can duplicate the performance issue on several machines - only
because I'm interested, since I use Avira.
The Real Truth MVP
out he is an idiot and you should ignore him. I run MSE, MBAM, and Avast on
the same system at the same time without any issues and I do this on
multiple systems. The only issues I have come across is on infected systems
when MSE is trying to remove an infection specifically TDSS. I purposely
infect these boxes for testing and the reason MBAM resident scanning is low
on resources is because it does not work. I have done numerous tests and
informed them at MBAM but then they have 4 people working for them who has
ZERO credibility with me. MSE catches almost everything I throw at it and
what it misses Avast catches. MBAM misses everything but then when you do a
scan it finds it. Their resident scanner is nothing but eye candy and they
use it to sucker people into buy it when it is not needed. now since I
posted in this thread the resident troll Leythos will reply with his same BS
and completely ignore the subject, Dustbin Kook who works for MBAM will
reply in a few days and ask for clarification like it is something new.
--
The Real Truth http://pcbutts1-therealtruth.blogspot.com/
*WARNING* Do NOT follow any advice given by the people listed below.
They do NOT have the expertise or knowledge to fix your issue. Do not waste
your time.
David H Lipman, Malke, PA Bear, Beauregard T. Shagnasty, Leythos.
"PajaP" <pa...@news-only.co.uk.invalid> wrote in message
news:e68nj5tfsq0umsnf4...@4ax.com...
Leythos
> is the resident troll in this and other groups.
>
PCBUTTS1, you're the stalker, showing that you mention myself and others
in every post you make, that you've registered a Usenet account in my
name even gives more proof that you're stalking me.
This thread was not about you, it was about the viability of MSE vs
other software.
You've added NOTHING to the thread, except another case of stalking.
PajaP
wrote:
>I have a Dual CPU system with 32GB RAM, a test box, running Win 7 Prof
>64 bit and Avira free, I didn't notice any difference between it running
>Avira and having no-AV/anti-malware tools installed.
>
>That's one of the reasons I asked about your hardware, to try and see
>why you were seeing the performance issue when others are not - I'll see
>if I can duplicate the performance issue on several machines - only
>because I'm interested, since I use Avira.
OK. I will also fire up my old laptop. This has Avira on it I think (if
not it can do). Will check its performance with and without and compare
it with other software. When I get the time ;)
David H. Lipman
http://www.av-comparatives.org/comparativesreviews/performance-tests
See WorldBench tests
WB Score w/o AV 116
Avira 114
Microsoft 107
BTW: I was looking at another thread where there was an indication MSE was dragging down
the system. Subsequently they added...
"CPU Full Name AMD Athlon(tm) 64 Processor 3500+"
Maybe that's it. MSE doesn't do well on AMD CPU based systems.
--
Dave
http://www.claymania.com/removal-trojan-adware.html
Multi-AV - http://www.pctipp.ch/downloads/dl/35905.asp
Buffalo
The Real Truth MVP wrote:
> Leythos is the resident troll in this and other groups. As you
> already found out he is an idiot and you should ignore him. I run
> MSE, MBAM, and Avast on the same system at the same time without any
> issues and I do this on multiple systems. The only issues I have come
> across is on infected systems when MSE is trying to remove an
> infection specifically TDSS. I purposely infect these boxes for
> testing and the reason MBAM resident scanning is low on resources is
> because it does not work. I have done numerous tests and informed
> them at MBAM but then they have 4 people working for them who has
> ZERO credibility with me. MSE catches almost everything I throw at it
> and what it misses Avast catches. MBAM misses everything but then
> when you do a scan it finds it. Their resident scanner is nothing but
> eye candy and they use it to sucker people into buy it when it is not
> needed. now since I posted in this thread the resident troll Leythos
> will reply with his same BS and completely ignore the subject,
> Dustbin Kook who works for MBAM will reply in a few days and ask for
> clarification like it is something new.
Do you find SAS as impotent as MBAM in its resident scanning function?
If so, when was the last program number and definition number used?
Thanks.
Buffalo
The Real Truth MVP
attempts and blocked a few the ones it did not were just warning. I ran
those tests about 3 months and when I informed SAS they were corrected. I
will post those results in a few weeks when I have access to them.
--
The Real Truth http://pcbutts1-therealtruth.blogspot.com/
*WARNING* Do NOT follow any advice given by the people listed below.
They do NOT have the expertise or knowledge to fix your issue. Do not waste
your time.
David H Lipman, Malke, PA Bear, Beauregard T. Shagnasty, Leythos.
"Buffalo" <Er...@nada.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:hhgq7a$bjq$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
The Real Truth MVP
click on the links below
WARNING THE LINKS BELOW ARE LIVE ACTIVE LINKS AND WITHOUT PROTECTION WILL
INFECT YOUR SYSTEM. DO NOT CLICK ON THEM UNLESS YOU KNOW WHAT YOU ARE DOING.
I reported these link to MBAM 4 months ago and they did nothing. MSE will
block it along with Avast.
http://www.antivirus-live-pro.com/
http://members.on.nimp.org/?u=timecop\unp80341561
--
The Real Truth http://pcbutts1-therealtruth.blogspot.com/
*WARNING* Do NOT follow any advice given by the people listed below.
They do NOT have the expertise or knowledge to fix your issue. Do not waste
your time.
David H Lipman, Malke, PA Bear, Beauregard T. Shagnasty, Leythos.
"Buffalo" <Er...@nada.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:hhgq7a$bjq$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
>
Dustin Cook
news:MPG.25a52ddfc...@us.news.astraweb.com:
> In article <73nmj51f89vjffjhi...@4ax.com>, pajap@news-
> only.co.uk.invalid says...
>>
>> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 08:52:59 -0500, Leythos <spam9...@rrohio.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <a5blj59hfqb7p29pr...@4ax.com>, pajap@news-
>> >only.co.uk.invalid says...
>> >> MSE obviously works on a much higher percentage of systems without
>> >> issues. The same would apply to Avira, Avast and MalwareBytes.
>> >> Everyone's system is different.
>> >> Does now make someone an MS shill just because they prefer an MS
>> >> product and are not afraid to recommend it here.
>> >>
>> >
>> >Microsoft didn't write MSE, it's a company they bought, so it's no
>> >more likely to work "better" or "higher" on any computer than any
>> >other product.
>>
>> I never said it would more than any other product. Those are your
>> words. I was comparing the amount of systems it works on to those it
>> does not. I really do not care how they acquired this or any other
>> product and it has no relevance to this discussion.
>
> Yes, it does, it's very relevant - you implied that because it was
> from Microsoft that it would likely run on a "higher" percentage of
> machines with less trouble - that's not true based on many decades of
> experience with Microsoft and the vendors they purchase.
>
>>
>> >For proof, just look at Service Packs and Updates, something
>> >that MS does write, and how many machines are negatively impacted by
>> >those.
>>
>> Irrelevant. Though I dare say the percentage of machines that are
>> impacted negatively is far lower those that are not.
>
> Again, it is VERY relevant - it shows that MS is not building apps
> that are more stable or less troublesome than the non-MS vendors, and
> MS has the inside scoop on their OS.
>
>> >Why would you trust MS to protect your computer, with another
>> >product, when they didn't protect it in the first place?
>>
>> Why would I not? Unlike yourself who chooses to slate everything MS,
>> I choose my own experiences to make my own decisions. You are a known
>> MS basher and as such I ignore most of what you write, which is
>> probably a shame (but I prefer to ignore those with obvious bias).
>
> You're wrong about my view on MS - I make a TON of money by building
> enterprise MS solutions all over the country and I have 20+ MS OS
> machines in my home, and several Linux ones.
>
> I am not a "known MS basher" at all - I'm very honest and very
> realistic. I love XP and server 2003/2008 and love Win 7 (don't care
> for Vista).
Thanks for letting me know my memory isn't shot. :) when I read the MS
basher comment, I nearly fell out of my chair.
> MS has proven time and time again that they can't secure the OS
> platform, even with their own antimalware tools, there has never been
> a case to trust them to build another app to protect the OS.
It's really not the OS's fault... tho, in all fairness; it's the way many
users have been taught to use computers. An OS is only doing what it's
told to do; some programs do nice things, and other programs don't do
nice things. If you forced Windows to harden a bit like linux, users
would complain...
--
... Those are my thoughts anyways...
Dustin Cook
news:e68nj5tfsq0umsnf4...@4ax.com:
Just for curiosity sake, which version of malwarebytes are you running?
V1.43 was released earlier this afternoon...
Dustin Cook
news:hhgc06$em1$1...@leythos.motzarella.org:
> Leythos is the resident troll in this and other groups. As you already
> found out he is an idiot and you should ignore him. I run MSE, MBAM,
> and Avast on the same system at the same time without any issues and I
> do this on multiple systems. The only issues I have come across is on
> infected systems when MSE is trying to remove an infection
> specifically TDSS. I purposely infect these boxes for testing and the
> reason MBAM resident scanning is low on resources is because it does
> not work. I have done numerous tests and informed them at MBAM but
> then they have 4 people working for them who has ZERO credibility with
> me. MSE catches almost everything I throw at it and what it misses
> Avast catches. MBAM misses everything but then when you do a scan it
> finds it. Their resident scanner is nothing but eye candy and they use
> it to sucker people into buy it when it is not needed. now since I
> posted in this thread the resident troll Leythos will reply with his
> same BS and completely ignore the subject, Dustbin Kook who works for
> MBAM will reply in a few days and ask for clarification like it is
> something new.
>
>
*shrug*. Christopher, is there a specific reason you find it difficult to
properly spell my name? Do you really think it offends me or something?
Malwarebytes (the creators of mbam) consists of far more than 4
individuals whom all have extensive credibility with the antimalware
community. You on the other hand, awe hell; google "pcbutts" and read for
yourself.
Dustin Cook
> If you want to test the real-time protection of MBAM and watch it fail
> then click on the links below
> WARNING THE LINKS BELOW ARE LIVE ACTIVE LINKS AND WITHOUT PROTECTION
> WILL INFECT YOUR SYSTEM. DO NOT CLICK ON THEM UNLESS YOU KNOW WHAT YOU
> ARE DOING. I reported these link to MBAM 4 months ago and they did
> nothing. MSE will block it along with Avast.
>
>
> http://www.antivirus-live-pro.com/
> http://members.on.nimp.org/?u=timecop\unp80341561
>
>
>
Seriously? this is your idea of a test? Who at mbam did you report these
links (hahahahaha, right...) too?
Dustin Cook
news:hhfv1a$s6j$1...@news.eternal-september.org:
I'm unable to effectively use this workstation with MSE loaded.
p3/800mhzX2
Tyan tiger 230
1gb sdram (pc133)
The Real Truth MVP
about MBAM and they cannot fix a simple issue. Let me refresh your memory
AGAIN, I'm sure Buffalo remembers because you replied to him in the same
thread.
----- Original Message -----
From: "The Real Truth MVP" <t...@void.com>
Newsgroups: alt.privacy.spyware
Sent: Thursday, August 06, 2009 2:10 PM
Subject: Re: MalwareBytes v1.40 released.
> Why do you keep denying that I am not giving you the IP address? how many
> times do I have to post it before you see it? That lame excuse you used
> about MBAM not knowing the dropper is cop out. You have to know the
> dropper
> in order to detect the malware it drops unless it is new but the links I
> posted are more then 6 months old. I submitted them back then so I don't
> know what you guys are doing. You also should have done that when I posted
> them back in march. Just for you here they are again.
>
>
> http://www.antivirus-live-pro.com/
> http://members.on.nimp.org/?u=timecop\unp80341561
>
> http://www.antivirus-live-pro.com/
> http://members.on.nimp.org/?u=timecop\unp80341561
>
> http://www.antivirus-live-pro.com/
> http://members.on.nimp.org/?u=timecop\unp80341561
>
> http://www.antivirus-live-pro.com/
> http://members.on.nimp.org/?u=timecop\unp80341561
>
> http://www.antivirus-live-pro.com/
> http://members.on.nimp.org/?u=timecop\unp80341561
>
> http://www.antivirus-live-pro.com/
> http://members.on.nimp.org/?u=timecop\unp80341561
>
> http://www.antivirus-live-pro.com/
> http://members.on.nimp.org/?u=timecop\unp80341561
>
> http://www.antivirus-live-pro.com/
> http://members.on.nimp.org/?u=timecop\unp80341561
>
> http://www.antivirus-live-pro.com/
> http://members.on.nimp.org/?u=timecop\unp80341561
>
>
> --
> The Real Truth http://pcbutts1-therealtruth.blogspot.com/
> *WARNING* Do NOT follow any advice given by the people listed below.
> They do NOT have the expertise or knowledge to fix your issue. Do not
> waste
> your time.
> David H Lipman, Malke, PA Bear, Beauregard T. Shagnasty, Leythos.
>
>
>
>
> "Dustin Cook" <bughunte...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns9C5FB32622D...@69.16.185.250...
>> "Buffalo" <Er...@nada.com.invalid> wrote in
>> news:h5fgd2$mki$1...@news.eternal-september.org:
>>
>>> Dustin Cook wrote:
>>>> "The Real Truth MVP" <t...@void.com> wrote in
>>>> news:pfidnTFN5MillefX...@giganews.com:
>>>>
>>>>> "Dustin Cook" <bughunte...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:Xns9C5EB5E1030...@69.16.185.250...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> WHat is not unknown to us? Evidently, the installer (Dropper) isn't
>>>>>> known to the PM module; or it would be blocked from
>>>>>> opening/running.
>>>>>
>>>>> You have the links so add them,
>>>>
>>>> I guess your confused. The PM module doesn't block links. The IP
>>>> module does that. 2nd, I don't take orders from you. If you wish to
>>>> submit samples of malware that we do not detect you are welcome to do
>>>> so. If you think we're going to go out of our way to find some
>>>> obscure sample you have that you won't give up, your mistaken.
>>>>
>>>>>> The IP
>>>>>> blocking module only baloons a window when it finds an IP to block.
>>>>>> You may have something running on your machine that wants to talk
>>>>>> to china.
>>>>>
>>>>> I at first thought that too but that is not possible because the
>>>>> test box I am using is a clean Vista install.
>>>>
>>>> As I said, our IP blocker doesn't pretend to detect things. Either an
>>>> incoming or outgoing connection IS being made to the IP; or we
>>>> wouldn't flag it.
>>>
>>> It seems that the Real Truth person states that the paid MBAM, running
>>> in real time, will let a malware program (one that MBAM can recognize)
>>> download and install itself without detecting it. Then, after the
>>> malware is installed, a manual scan by MBAM will detect that malware
>>> that just got installed and remove it.
>>
>> Which doesn't make much sense. If our realtime module sees it, it will
>> not allow the program to be opened, copied or much of anything else
>> unless you tell the PM module to ignore it.
>>
>>> I guess the question is , if the above is true, is why doesn't
>>> MBAM,running in real time, stop that malware in the first place?
>>
>> From our testing and various real world experiences, it does stop the
>> malware that's known to it, dead in it's tracks. PcButts won't provide me
>> the information I would require to investigate his claim further. IP
>> addresses, malicious software, etc. Based on my own testing and that of
>> the others in the research team however, we don't believe this issue is
>> actually occuring.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Regards,
>> Dustin Cook
>> Malware Researcher
>> MalwareBytes - http://www.malwarebytes.org
>>
>>
>
--
The Real Truth http://pcbutts1-therealtruth.blogspot.com/
*WARNING* Do NOT follow any advice given by the people listed below.
They do NOT have the expertise or knowledge to fix your issue. Do not waste
your time.
David H Lipman, Malke, PA Bear, Beauregard T. Shagnasty, Leythos.
"Dustin Cook" <bughunte...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9CF1DC305BA...@69.16.185.247...
PajaP
<bughunte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Looks like it was Avira that was the resource hog on my system.
>>
>
>Just for curiosity sake, which version of malwarebytes are you running?
>V1.43 was released earlier this afternoon...
Well it was 1.42 but now 1.43, thanks.
Beauregard T. Shagnasty
> If you want to test the real-time protection of MBAM and watch it fail
> then click on the links below
> WARNING THE LINKS BELOW ARE LIVE ACTIVE LINKS AND WITHOUT PROTECTION
> WILL INFECT YOUR SYSTEM. DO NOT CLICK ON THEM UNLESS YOU KNOW WHAT
> YOU ARE DOING.
> I reported these link to MBAM 4 months ago and they did nothing. MSE
> will block it along with Avast.
>
> http://www.antivirus-live-pro.com/
> http://members.on.nimp.org/?u=timecop\unp80341561
Well, I clicked on them. Other than a page displaying in my browser,
nothing happened. No anti-anything programs are running on my computer.
The first one is decidedly red. The second is .. well .. Not Safe For
Work. It's your wife?
What's next?
--
The Real Truth: http://www.google.com/search?q=pcbutts1+software+thief
*WARNING* Do NOT follow any advice given by the people listed below.
They do NOT have the expertise or knowledge to fix your issue. Do not
waste your time.
PCButtface1, The Not-Real Truth Not-an-MVP, fake-ms-mvp.org
Cronos
> LOL
> It probably has to more to do with the AMD CPU :-(
>
Maybe but at the time I bought that AMD64 cpu AMD pwned Intel for cpu
power, now the tables are turned and is why my latest cpu is Intel quad
core i5 750 OC to 3.8ghz. Prior to this cpu it was C...@3.4ghz and MSE
ran ok on it but could still detect some slow down in explorer. Doesn't
really matter because it's not like I spend all day in explorer.
Explorer is slower on Vista and Win7 compared to XP anyway so part of
the problem is Microsoft.
Cronos
> I am sure this is correct on your system. Not on mine. MSE uses the
> least on mine. It is also the least intrusive.
Maybe that's because MSE has no firewall bundled with it? Pay for
version of Avira does so of course it is going to be more intrusive.
Free version doesn't though and is not intrusive at all, except when it
claims a file is a virus when it isn't. ;)
Cronos
> That fact is: Resident protection of Avira or Avast when used together
> with the resident protection in Malwarebytes Antimalware uses more
> resources on my PC than just Resident MSE alone.
Have benchmarks to prove it? Put up or shut up.
Cronos
>
> "Phoning home" implies spyware. That is not the same thing as ensuring
> you have the most up-to-date antivirus definitions downloaded and
> installed!
>
>
Well, just about all Microsoft software does snoop a bit if you don't
opt out.
PajaP
wrote:
You shut up you damned fool!
This is my opinion and I have proved it.
Whether a dumb arse like you believes makes no difference.
Now back to your box.
PajaP
<bughunte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Just for curiosity sake, which version of malwarebytes are you running?
>V1.43 was released earlier this afternoon...
H'mmm I am just looking at another thread that indicates there was some
issue with 1.42?
How long was 1.42 in use before this latest 1.43 version (more than a
month?)
Dustin Cook
> Once again you come here a deny knowing anything about it. That says a
> lot about MBAM and they cannot fix a simple issue. Let me refresh your
> memory AGAIN, I'm sure Buffalo remembers because you replied to him in
> the same thread.
I don't deny anything, Christopher. I merely laugh at the ignorance you
willfully display here.
The IP address I have no control over. I am responsible for definitions in
the database, and I create those from software analysis. I do turn in
malicious IP addresses on a daily basis, by the thousands; but they aren't
automatically added to the IP blocker.
It is entirely possible to morph a dropper file as often as one wishes, and
we could certainly miss the dropper; and still when you do a quick scan
(full scan is rarely necessary) we will kill whatever it installed. So your
claim that we can't deal with that particular malware sample you "tested"
is a bunch of horseshit. Even if you get infected because the dropper is
new, and the exe's are new to us; if they remain in the same location and
fit a couple of other checks, we'll still nail them.
Our program happens to kickass at removal, just browse some of the help
forums.
Testing antimalware is a bit more complicated than right clicking sample a
and seeing what happens.
I do have a question tho, will you dazzle us with more of your brilliance
or is this the best you have to offer?
After reading my post, I stand by what I said and challenge you to find any
respected researcher in the antimalware community to dispute it. I'm
waiting.. heh.
Dustin Cook
news:f45oj5dij34mmd4ba...@4ax.com:
v1.43 is supposed (we hope!) to clear up the PM module memory leak issue.
Please let me know if this was a problem you experienced previously and if
this corrects it for you.
Dustin Cook
news:uiioj5ppokl3fl84e...@4ax.com:
v1.42 was placed online near the beginning of december; and on some system
configurations the PM module did have memory leak issues. everytime you
updated definitions, it was consuming that much more memory; eventually
resulting in system instability and a crash.
Cronos
> You shut up you damned fool!
> This is my opinion and I have proved it.
> Whether a dumb arse like you believes makes no difference.
> Now back to your box.
You can't prove an opinion as it is just an opinion and not fact. Once
again, put up or shut up. Like I said in my first post to you, you are a
Microsoft plant and not here to be objective. You have even been shown
benchmarks showing Avira is lighter on resources and yet you refuse to
believe the facts. That makes you a fool and not I.
PajaP
wrote:
>
>You can't prove an opinion as it is just an opinion and not fact. Once
>again, put up or shut up. Like I said in my first post to you, you are a
>Microsoft plant and not here to be objective. You have even been shown
>benchmarks showing Avira is lighter on resources and yet you refuse to
>believe the facts. That makes you a fool and not I.
My last post to you, as you are a moron.
I have said it is going to be different on different peoples PCs.
On mine Avira is slower . End of!
It is not an opinion it is a fact. Another fact is you don't like it and
want to provoke an argument.
Jeesh even the benchmarks link that was posted here has MSE just a few
points behind Avira for the overall score. So on the system they tested
on it was in favour of Avira. On mine it is not. I expect you have some
IQ so try and comprehend that. There will be discrepancies on some
systems, dependent on background tasks etc etc!
Now I could plant benchmarks but what would be the point. They would
only be valid for my system and you would no doubt accuse them of being
fabricated. Fool!
MS plant. You are the one who sounds like an Avira shill and a **fool**.
Bye. Back to your box.
Daave
> On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 04:08:02 -0800, Cronos <cro...@sphere.invalid>
> wrote:
>>
>> You can't prove an opinion as it is just an opinion and not fact.
>> Once again, put up or shut up. Like I said in my first post to you,
>> you are a Microsoft plant and not here to be objective. You have
>> even been shown benchmarks showing Avira is lighter on resources and
>> yet you refuse to believe the facts. That makes you a fool and not I.
>
> My last post to you, as you are a moron.
>
> I have said it is going to be different on different peoples PCs.
> On mine Avira is slower . End of!
I thought your system was slower because you were also simultaneously
running MBAM's real-time component. Apologies in advance in the event
you also tried the *free* version of Avira *without* MBAM and compared
*that* situation to MSE.
PajaP
>I thought your system was slower because you were also simultaneously
>running MBAM's real-time component. Apologies in advance in the event
>you also tried the *free* version of Avira *without* MBAM and compared
>*that* situation to MSE.
>
No, but I have been running MBAM and MSE together with no issues, so
far. Though this is the latest 1.43 version of MABM.
I am wondering if it was MBAM causing the issues as the 1.42 version
reportedly had a bit of a memory leak issue.. Though looking at an email
communication for a fiends PC with similar issue, which was at end of
November, it cannot be the same problem for him (1.42 was not released
until December).
Though it would be right dates for problems with my PC (I only switched
to 64-bit Windows 7 at the start of the month which is when I started
testing AV software again).
I have converted a lot of users to MSE from Avira, Avast and some AVG
this month too, who all reported various, but minor issues. Some but not
all were running MBAM too but I am unsure if any had the resident MBAM
running (I doubt it as they are not the sort to spend money on software
of this type).
I have got Avira and MBAM on my laptop but don't have a licence to run
the real-time protection on it now (as licence is in use on my PC).
I suppose what I could do is uninstall MSE from my PC and try it again
with Avira and with/without MSE but am reluctant to do so while it is
all running so well (and also it is so unobtrusive). Maybe after the
holiday.
Leythos
only.co.uk.invalid says...
> I have got Avira and MBAM on my laptop but don't have a licence to run
> the real-time protection on it now (as licence is in use on my PC).
> I suppose what I could do is uninstall MSE from my PC and try it again
> with Avira and with/without MSE but am reluctant to do so while it is
> all running so well (and also it is so unobtrusive). Maybe after the
> holiday.
>
I think you will find, after some experience, that Avira provides a LOT
better protection against malware than MSE even pretends to provide.
--
You can't trust your best friends, your five senses, only the little
voice inside you that most civilians don't even hear -- Listen to that.
Trust yourself.
spam9...@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)
The Real Truth MVP
work. There is a download link on the first page of the first link that will
download malware MBAM allows it. The second link is full of filthy pop ups.
Internet Explorer, Avast, MSE all block both those pages from even loading,
sorry ass MBAM does not. Those links are a year old now.
--
The Real Truth http://pcbutts1-therealtruth.blogspot.com/
*WARNING* Do NOT follow any advice given by the people listed below.
They do NOT have the expertise or knowledge to fix your issue. Do not waste
your time.
David H Lipman, Malke, PA Bear, Beauregard T. Shagnasty, Leythos.
"ASCII" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message news:4b3f1c9f.8369796@EDCBIC...
> The Real Truth MVP wrote:
>>If you want to test the real-time protection of MBAM and watch it fail
>>then
>>click on the links below
>>WARNING THE LINKS BELOW ARE LIVE ACTIVE LINKS AND WITHOUT PROTECTION WILL
>>INFECT YOUR SYSTEM. DO NOT CLICK ON THEM UNLESS YOU KNOW WHAT YOU ARE
>>DOING.
>>I reported these link to MBAM 4 months ago and they did nothing. MSE will
>>block it along with Avast.
>>
>>
>>http://www.antivirus-live-pro,com/
>>http://members.on.nimp,org/?u=timecop\unp80341561
>
> The first only loaded an ad page then stopped,
> the second tried to load an applet, issued an invalid byte code warning
> then seemed to hang up.
> Of course I don't use any sissy hosts blocking gimmicks,
> so the full force was thrown at me, and to no ill effect.
Dustin Cook
> That's my point MBAM does not block it. It's Protection Module does
> not work. There is a download link on the first page of the first link
> that will download malware MBAM allows it. The second link is full of
> filthy pop ups. Internet Explorer, Avast, MSE all block both those
> pages from even loading, sorry ass MBAM does not. Those links are a
> year old now.
The Protection Module and IP blocking module are two seperate modules. The
IP blocking module is the one responsible for blocking of websites. It
blocks yours just fine. :) MBAM is not a popup blocker, and I don't think
anyone from malwarebytes ever claimed it was; and with respect to filthly
popups, pot kettle black..
The Protection Module is the one responsible for keeping an eye on
executables. It prevents (hence the name) the execution of known malicious
executables that you might have present on your computer.
What is unclear about this explanation?
The Real Truth MVP
and run it. I then scan with MBAM and it finds it. What part of IT DOES NOT
WORK don't you understand. What the hell is it protecting?
--
The Real Truth http://pcbutts1-therealtruth.blogspot.com/
*WARNING* Do NOT follow any advice given by the people listed below.
They do NOT have the expertise or knowledge to fix your issue. Do not waste
your time.
David H Lipman, Malke, PA Bear, Beauregard T. Shagnasty, Leythos.
"Dustin Cook" <bughunte...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9CF2DAE4E9C...@69.16.185.247...
Gary
On 31-Dec-2009, Leythos <spam9...@rrohio.com> wrote:
> I think you will find, after some experience, that Avira provides a LOT
> better protection against malware than MSE even pretends to provide.
>
> --
> You can't trust your best friends, your five senses, only the little
> voice inside you that most civilians don't even hear -- Listen to that.
> Trust yourself.
> spam9...@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)
I will second that.
PajaP
wrote:
>I think you will find, after some experience, that Avira provides a LOT
>better protection against malware than MSE even pretends to provide.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Sigh! There we go again, deliberate knocking of MSE because you think
you know better than all the industry experts. OK.
I have installed Avira. My system would not boot afterwards. Quicker to
put the image back on than figure put what this POS did to my PC.
No more Avira crap on my PC. Cannot be trusted to even install properly
let alone work as an AV.
And that ends my discussion on this.
Daave
Since the *overwhelming* majority of those who have installed Avira do
not experience the problem of not being able to boot their system
afterwards (!), I would have to say this is a user issue more than
anything else. Calling Avira software "crap" is an over-reaction, but
it's your PC.
If it were me, I would look into what *my* possible mistakes were. Now,
if many others experienced the same thing, this would be a whole
different ball of wax. However, that is not what is happening here.
> And that ends my discussion on this.
Probably just as well. Still, it would have been nice to know what
particular things you did that caused this situation so we all could
learn. In the future if you ever decide to test software, you should do
so on a clean system. By "clean", I don't necessarily mean malware-free.
What I mean is what you get after a Clean Install. A virtual box would
work. Or a separate partition or hard drive.
I wonder if MSE wasn't properly removed and if some sort of conflict
occurred. Oh, well, guess we'll never know...
PajaP
>Since the *overwhelming* majority of those who have installed Avira do
>not experience the problem of not being able to boot their system
>afterwards (!), I would have to say this is a user issue more than
>anything else.
Since the *overwhelming* majority of those who have installed MSE do
not experience any problems, I would have to say any that do, have a
Daave
So much for the
>>> And that ends my discussion on this.
I see that you snipped the rest of my post, too. It's a shame you have
closed your mind to trying determine the real cause of your booting up
problem. If you were to do this, not only you would benefit, but others
would, too.
I agree that your "discussion" has ended, come to think of it. Your only
remarks now are to simply contradict without using critical thinking
skills. This is no real discussion.
Leythos
only.co.uk.invalid says...
>
> On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 12:35:01 -0500, Leythos <spam9...@rrohio.com>
> wrote:
>
> >I think you will find, after some experience, that Avira provides a LOT
> >better protection against malware than MSE even pretends to provide.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Sigh! There we go again, deliberate knocking of MSE because you think
> you know better than all the industry experts. OK.
You seem to have a bias against anything that is not MS. The fact, from
my experience with thousands of systems, is that MSE does not provide
the same or better protection than do the top 5 products on the market.
As you so kindly put it in your experience, it's not opinion, it's fact.
You see to have a nasty streak in your comments, and it's not warranted,
you might find people would be more willing to discuss things with you
if you were not showing such a rude side of yourself and your strong
Pro-MS Bias - we're not showing an Anti-MS bias, we're relating our
experience, decades of it, across thousands of PC, across multiple
products.
> I have installed Avira. My system would not boot afterwards. Quicker
> to put the image back on than figure put what this POS did to my PC.
> No more Avira crap on my PC. Cannot be trusted to even install properly
> let alone work as an AV.
>
> And that ends my discussion on this.
And that suggests that something is wrong with your PC, not the
hardware, the current installation you have.
Leythos
only.co.uk.invalid says...
That's like saying that the majority of people that install Open Office
don't experience any problems - it doesn't do the same thing, but it's
close.
MSE is not the same product, by any means, as Avira or other products in
that class - the people that have decades of experience in security
don't trust it, your blind trust and rude comments show that you don't
really know yourself.
I suppose that you're one of those that believes Defrag is not needed
and doesn't help performance, because people at CNET or PCMag did a
article on it and said it doesn't help....
Beauregard T. Shagnasty
"No, I'm right."
"No, I'M right!"
"NO, *I'M RIGHT*!!!"
Give it a rest, guys. Y'all sound like my grandbabies.
If this virus/spyware crap is too much for all y'all, why don't y'all
just switch to Linux, and forget about it?
--
-bts
-takes football, goes home
PajaP
wrote:
>In article <in7sj5pv6e2et1bht...@4ax.com>, pajap@news-
>only.co.uk.invalid says...
>>
>> On Fri, 1 Jan 2010 10:56:45 -0500, "Daave" <da...@example.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Since the *overwhelming* majority of those who have installed Avira do
>> >not experience the problem of not being able to boot their system
>> >afterwards (!), I would have to say this is a user issue more than
>> >anything else.
>>
>> Since the *overwhelming* majority of those who have installed MSE do
>> not experience any problems, I would have to say any that do, have a
>> user issue more than anything else.
>
>That's like saying that the majority of people that install Open Office
>don't experience any problems - it doesn't do the same thing, but it's
>close.
>
>MSE is not the same product, by any means, as Avira or other products in
>that class - the people that have decades of experience in security
>don't trust it, your blind trust and rude comments show that you don't
>really know yourself.
>
>I suppose that you're one of those that believes Defrag is not needed
>and doesn't help performance, because people at CNET or PCMag did a
>article on it and said it doesn't help....
Sigh!
PajaP
wrote:
>You see to have a nasty streak in your comments, and it's not warranted,
>you might find people would be more willing to discuss things with you
>if you were not showing such a rude side of yourself and your strong
>Pro-MS Bias
Pot, kettle, Black!
And your obvious Avira bias, nothing else works attitude.
>we're not showing an Anti-MS bias, we're relating our
>experience, decades of it, across thousands of PC, across multiple
>products.
There you go again assuming you are the only one that has decades of
experience and thousands of PCs.
PajaP
<a.non...@example.invalid> wrote:
>"I'm right."
>"No, I'm right."
>"No, I'M right!"
>"NO, *I'M RIGHT*!!!"
>
>Give it a rest, guys. Y'all sound like my grandbabies.
Agreed.
PajaP
>PajaP wrote:
>> On Fri, 1 Jan 2010 10:56:45 -0500, "Daave" <da...@example.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Since the *overwhelming* majority of those who have installed Avira
>>> do not experience the problem of not being able to boot their system
>>> afterwards (!), I would have to say this is a user issue more than
>>> anything else.
>>
>> Since the *overwhelming* majority of those who have installed MSE do
>> not experience any problems, I would have to say any that do, have a
>> user issue more than anything else.
>
>So much for the
>>>> And that ends my discussion on this.
You followed up. I answered.
>I see that you snipped the rest of my post, too. It's a shame you have
>closed your mind to trying determine the real cause of your booting up
>problem. If you were to do this, not only you would benefit, but others
>would, too.
It was quicker to build it. I now have Avast, MSE (resident) and MBAM
installed.
>I agree that your "discussion" has ended, come to think of it. Your only
>remarks now are to simply contradict without using critical thinking
>skills. This is no real discussion.
No my issue has been, like I said to Lethos. Pot, kettle, Black.
Too many people here thinking their view are the correct ones (yes, me
too).
Also people slating my choice of AV. As soon as it is the other way
around people start sulking about it (yes, me too).
Dustin Cook
> What part of IT DOES NOT WORK don't you understand? I can download the
> exe and run it. I then scan with MBAM and it finds it. What part of IT
> DOES NOT WORK don't you understand. What the hell is it protecting?
If the protection module let you open the file to install it, then the exe
you got isn't one we know. It happens. When you scan and find it with mbam,
our hueristics took over. :)
the end result is the same tho; the badguy is killed.
Dustin Cook
> The Real Truth MVP wrote:
>>
>>They do NOT have the expertise or knowledge to fix your issue. Do not
>>waste your time.
>
> Not an issue nor waste of time, just something to play with.
> BTW: The [setupxv.exe] manages to find something that's not in my
> registry, at least not in the one outside the sandbox.
You may want to be running one of the new betas of sandboxie; I turned in a
new sample the other day to it's author that is able to escape and delete
itself from the sandbox.... heh.
for what it's worth.
Leythos
only.co.uk.invalid says...
>
> On Fri, 1 Jan 2010 12:06:59 -0500, Leythos <spam9...@rrohio.com>
> wrote:
>
> >You see to have a nasty streak in your comments, and it's not warranted,
> >you might find people would be more willing to discuss things with you
> >if you were not showing such a rude side of yourself and your strong
> >Pro-MS Bias
>
> Pot, kettle, Black!
> And your obvious Avira bias, nothing else works attitude.
At this time, based on all of the products I've tested, only Avira has
managed to pass the basic home user compromise issues.
For more than a decades I ran businesses on Symantec corporate edition
software and had never had one network/system compromised, we had non-
managed networks running many other solutions, they never fared as well
and we picked up a lot of clients because of our record. We have always
had a single computer in a separate DMZ network to download file/misc
from the wild and had it compromised in 10 seconds last month - typed in
incorrect Microsoft website address and was redirected to a malware site
that required no additional clicks/actions to take over the machine.
Cleaned the machine (restored a ghost image) and started testing with
the latest version of all the major players - only Avira Antivir, even
the free version, detected and blocked it from controlling the system.
McAfee, MSE, AVG didn't even notice it, so, there you go, that's why I'm
currently giving support/praise to Avira products.
> >we're not showing an Anti-MS bias, we're relating our
> >experience, decades of it, across thousands of PC, across multiple
> >products.
>
> There you go again assuming you are the only one that has decades of
> experience and thousands of PCs.
And yet you seem to be attacking people for their experience, their
real-world experience across more systems that you've claimed to have
tested on/with..... Each time someone in group points out one of your
flaws you come back with a little different story....
Dustin Cook
> Dustin Cook wrote:
>>
>>You may want to be running one of the new betas of sandboxie;
>
> v3.43.09b
> is that recent enough to address your fugitive app?
Nope. I got that beta as soon as tzuk released it. The file, IE.exe is
still able to escape the sandbox and remove itself from the real hard
drive.
> Other than a form of self-stealthing,
> what else can it do when it escapes,
> muck around with the system?
No stealthing involved, simply it's demonstrating it's ability to make
changes outside of the sandbox environment; ie, deleting itself from a
forced folder.
> IOW: How much payload cargo can it take with?
As I believe this is just a proof of concept version, it doesn't contain
any payload; but it very well could use the same trickery to delete other
files present on the hard disk, besides itself.
PajaP
wrote:
>At this time, based on all of the products I've tested, only Avira has
>managed to pass the basic home user compromise issues.
Yes, these are 'your' tests. Your opinion stated on newsnet with no
evidence to back any "claims".
>For more than a decades I ran businesses on Symantec corporate edition
>software and had never had one network/system compromised, we had non-
>managed networks running many other solutions, they never fared as well
>and we picked up a lot of clients because of our record. We have always
>had a single computer in a separate DMZ network to download file/misc
>from the wild and had it compromised in 10 seconds last month - typed in
>incorrect Microsoft website address and was redirected to a malware site
>that required no additional clicks/actions to take over the machine.
>Cleaned the machine (restored a ghost image) and started testing with
>the latest version of all the major players - only Avira Antivir, even
>the free version, detected and blocked it from controlling the system.
Wow, it passes one test. Bravo! And again this is not evidence to me.
This is the 'opinion' and so called 'real life' experience (snooze) of
one person in newsnet, who to me could be an 8 year old child.
When are you going to realise, mentioning you real-world experiences
(true or not) score no points in usenet. If you want to do this then
start to back your 'claims' up with evidence and ensure your tests are
not biased towards one product.
What you accuse me of below you do yourself. Coming up with more stories
to try and sell me Avira. I am not interested.
I remember reading the thread and thinking then I could smell BS. Maybe
this is why I take your 'opinions' with a pinch of salt now (sorry, but
you brought it up).
>McAfee, MSE, AVG didn't even notice it, so, there you go, that's why I'm
>currently giving support/praise to Avira products.
Bravo for you. You manage to find one example that only Avira detected.
>> >we're not showing an Anti-MS bias, we're relating our
>> >experience, decades of it, across thousands of PC, across multiple
>> >products.
Not 'we're'. 'YOU' are the one, maybe not exactly showing anti-MS bias,
though some of your comments about it "pretending' to be an AV may
indicate otherwise. You are certainly trying to 'sell' (maybe not in any
financial sense of the word) Avira to me. I am not interested.
>> There you go again assuming you are the only one that has decades of
>> experience and thousands of PCs.
>
>And yet you seem to be attacking people for their experience, their
>real-world experience across more systems that you've claimed to have
>tested on/with..... Each time someone in group points out one of your
>flaws you come back with a little different story....
I am attacking no-one. I would suggest in this thread, quite the
opposite has happened. If anyone has been attacked for his opinion it is
me, for daring to prefer MSE over Avira. Maybe my comebacks have been a
'bit' strong, but you accuse me of making up stories and my comments not
being valid (and that is putting it lightly), so I am and will continue
to be justified.
My involvement in this thread was to state that Avira has caused some
slow down on my system and on others I know of. This is fact. I provide
no evidence of this. You start to demand I produce evidence or my
statements will be worthless. Yet you continue to make statements and
try to sell Avira without providing any of this evidence yourself. You
are a hypocrite and an Avira shill.
You decided to jump in trying to sell to me that Avira is a great
product and I should start to use it. I am not interested.
When will you understand I have no intention of switching to Avira?
I am not going to start to use it on the opinion of one person in usenet
(or even 3 or 4). Especially when I have already tested it and found it
does not meet my requirements.
I have a product, MSE, that meets my needs. I have read many reviews on
it from sources I trust, not from some shill in a newsgroup. It works
for me. It does not bug me with requests to buy it.
You are worse than a door-to-door salesman trying to sell me
encyclopedia.
Well like I would slam the door on the salesman, I am going to killfile
you and suggest you do the same to me. You will make no sale here!
Cronos
> My last post to you, as you are a moron.
Liar! It's your last post to me because you lost the argument after my
very first post to you and you can't accept loss.
Cronos
> Sigh! There we go again, deliberate knocking of MSE because you think
> you know better than all the industry experts. OK.
>
> I have installed Avira. My system would not boot afterwards. Quicker to
> put the image back on than figure put what this POS did to my PC.
> No more Avira crap on my PC. Cannot be trusted to even install properly
> let alone work as an AV.
>
> And that ends my discussion on this.
Wow, just wow. Stop wasting your time arguing with this lying fuck guys.
Cronos
> Since the *overwhelming* majority of those who have installed Avira do
> not experience the problem of not being able to boot their system
> afterwards (!), I would have to say this is a user issue more than
> anything else. Calling Avira software "crap" is an over-reaction, but
> it's your PC.
And he has the audacity to call me a moron. The idiot can't even install
Avira properly. Avira is extremely simple to get installed. I would hate
to see him try and remove any Norton product from his system.
Cronos
> No my issue has been, like I said to Lethos. Pot, kettle, Black.
> Too many people here thinking their view are the correct ones (yes, me
> too).
> Also people slating my choice of AV. As soon as it is the other way
> around people start sulking about it (yes, me too).
You are playing with the big boys now and not some noobs on Microsoft
web forums. If you want to look like you know WTF you are talking about
you better go back to the Microsoft web forums where noobs might
actually believe your BS.