That's not quite correct. Check the November 2001 tests on NT platform.
--
Peace,
Lee Higdon
http://www.virusbtn.com/100/vb100sum.html
I just wanted some places that would say whther or not it really was good or not
on the Win2K platform.
"Lee Higdon" <leehi...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:z58a8.41015$Pz4.243052@rwcrnsc53...
This was a recent test last October that compares several AV products, ezAV
being one. When you get down to zoo type malware, its on-demand scanning
leaves a lot to be desired as it relates to script viruses, backdoors and
trojans. However, there are lots of trade-offs you have to consider when
looking at data like this. An obvious trade-off to consider will be impact
on resources.
--
Peace,
Lee Higdon
"Lee Higdon" <l.t.h...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:QXaa8.260$Nv5....@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
--
Peace,
Lee Higdon
I used InoculateIT PE since it was introduced, as soon as EZ AV was launched
I bought it as I had been very please with InoculateIT PE. However, on my
w2k system, I noticed that some programs (not all) were a lot slower after
installing EZ AV.
I put this down to the way it scans files on open/close ??
After reading several reviews I decided to try NOD32 and I'm very pleased
with it. It doesn't slow my system down at all.
Clive
Heather
"Bob" <rh...@access995.com> wrote in message
news:HSia8.16070$gf5....@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
"Lee Higdon" <l.t.h...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:zcca8.612$Nf3....@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...