Internet Security, AntiVirus

[Bill B]

Currently have Norton Internet Security 2011 on XP, SP3. Does OK speed
wise on the desktops but has slowed the laptop to a crawl.

It is time to renew, and am looking at alternatives, but independent
third-party reviews are difficult to come by (at least according to my
search skills).

Any suggestions on where to go for reviews, or personal recommendations?

Bill Braun

[James Silverton]

PCNews has reviews.

--

James Silverton ( NOT not.jim.silverton)

[WLS]

My personal recommendation, Linux.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/03/18/fileless_malware_found/

-- test

[Jay Garcia]

On 19.03.2012 08:28, Bill B wrote:

I use Kaspersky AV for my home network here and a shared license with my
son (price includes 3 users). Also installed on the laptop and not slow
by any stretch. Support is great and usually no wait time when posting
to their forum.

--
Jay Garcia - www.ufaq.org - Netscape - Firefox - SeaMonkey - Thunderbird
Mozilla Contribute Coordinator Team - www.mozilla.org/contribute/
Mozilla Mozillian Member - www.mozillians.org
Mozilla Contributor Member - www.mozilla.org/credits/

[Bill B]

Found pcnewsdigest.com. Is that the place?

[Bill B]

On 3/19/2012 10:20 AM, Jay Garcia wrote:
> On 19.03.2012 08:28, Bill B wrote:
>
> --- Original Message ---
>
>> Currently have Norton Internet Security 2011 on XP, SP3. Does OK speed
>> wise on the desktops but has slowed the laptop to a crawl.
>>
>> It is time to renew, and am looking at alternatives, but independent
>> third-party reviews are difficult to come by (at least according to my
>> search skills).
>>
>> Any suggestions on where to go for reviews, or personal recommendations?
>>
>> Bill Braun
>
> I use Kaspersky AV for my home network here and a shared license with my
> son (price includes 3 users). Also installed on the laptop and not slow
> by any stretch. Support is great and usually no wait time when posting
> to their forum.

From what I have read the Kaspersky AV program is separate from the IS
program (which in turn includes the AV feature). Are we talking the same
thing, Jay?

Bill

[Bill B]

On 3/19/2012 9:59 AM, WLS wrote:
> On 03/19/2012 09:28 AM, Bill B wrote:
>> Currently have Norton Internet Security 2011 on XP, SP3. Does OK speed
>> wise on the desktops but has slowed the laptop to a crawl.
>>
>> It is time to renew, and am looking at alternatives, but independent
>> third-party reviews are difficult to come by (at least according to my
>> search skills).
>>
>> Any suggestions on where to go for reviews, or personal recommendations?
>>
>> Bill Braun
>
>
> My personal recommendation, Linux.

I've pondered that for years. I use a number of "must have" programs
that have no Linux equivalent (or to convert to them would be very
costly) so for better or worse I remain with Windows.

Bill

[David H. Lipman]

From: "Bill B" <bbr...@basicbusinesssim.invalid>

http://www.av-comparatives.org/

My choice and suggested software is Avira AntiVir.

--
Dave
Multi-AV Scanning Tool - http://multi-av.thespykiller.co.uk
http://www.pctipp.ch/downloads/dl/35905.asp

[W3BNR]

On 3/19/2012 9:28 AM Bill B submitted the following:

I've had good luck with Microsoft Security Essentials (for Windows, of course)
and the FREE Avast Anti-virus.

--
Ed, W3BNR
http://JonesFarm.us/W3BNR
Powered by SeaMonkey: http://www.seamonkey-project.org/

A theory is better than its explanation.

[Jay Garcia]

The AV program is separate and that is what I use. It also integrates
into Firefox quite well with the Kaspersky URL Advisor extension. KIS is
the suite but I don't need or use it.

[Cy Burnot]

W3BNR has written on 3/19/2012 11:08 AM:

> On 3/19/2012 9:28 AM Bill B submitted the following:
>> Currently have Norton Internet Security 2011 on XP, SP3. Does OK speed wise on
>> the desktops but has slowed the laptop to a crawl.
>>
>> It is time to renew, and am looking at alternatives, but independent third-party
>> reviews are difficult to come by (at least according to my search skills).
>>
>> Any suggestions on where to go for reviews, or personal recommendations?
>>
>> Bill Braun
>
> I've had good luck with Microsoft Security Essentials (for Windows, of course)
> and the FREE Avast Anti-virus.

Those plus Malwarebytes AntiMalware.

[Ron Hunter]

Bill,

I have been using Microsoft Security Essentials on all my computers for
some time. I works quietly, without much intrusion into my normal
processing, and is completely trouble-free. The only things I would
suggest is that if you use it, enter the Firefox and TB profiles into
the 'exceptions' list, as well as the directory in which MSE itself
resides as real-time scans of those can cause momentary freezes to your
processing.

[Bill B]

Thanks, Ron. Of the reviews that I have found, MSE is mostly ignored -
nothing good, nothing bad. Thanks for the tip on profiles.

Bill

[Bill B]

On 3/19/2012 11:40 AM, Ron Hunter wrote:

One other question, Ron...you made a comment a few days ago about the
effect such programs have on PC performance. I gather your reference to
"without much intrusion" means it has a minimal footprint on performance?

Bill

[David E. Ross]

My favorite independent PC shop strongly recommends a combination of the
freeware versions of AVG and Malwarebytes.

AVG Anti-Virus Free 2012 remains running in the background,
automatically scanning files being accessed and E-mail activity. See
<http://free.avg.com/us-en/download-free-all-product>.

Malwarebytes Anti-Malware focuses on worms, trojans, rootkits, rogues,
dialers, and spyware. The freeware version has to be manually started
for each scan. See <http://www.malwarebytes.org/>.

--

David E. Ross
<http://www.rossde.com/>.

Anyone who thinks government owns a monopoly on inefficient, obstructive
bureaucracy has obviously never worked for a large corporation.
� 1997 by David E. Ross

[Peter]

I don't understand the relationship between your question and this
mozilla group. But....I like the free avira free antivirus for a real
time and manual scanner for malware combined with the free COMODO
firewall with "Defense +" active as a more powerful and configurable
firewall than the Windows Firewall. I used this combination for years
on a 9 year old Pentium 4 with only 512K ram running XP SP-3. It slowed
things down but what effective real-time shield wouldn't; especially on
older technology. You can always try them and uninstall if not
satisfied. No cost involved.

[clay]

I have a Windows box for those /few/ programs that must have Windows.
I turn it on a couple times a year.
For everything else, I use Linux.
Since Linux will run just fine on that box you had to replace in order
to run the latest Windows, hardware is free...

[those really in the know, run a VM. I'm not that savvy...]

[clay]

On 03/19/2012 8:40 AM, Ron Hunter wrote:
> On 3/19/2012 8:28 AM, Bill B wrote:
>> Currently have Norton Internet Security 2011 on XP, SP3. Does OK speed
>> wise on the desktops but has slowed the laptop to a crawl.
>>
>> It is time to renew, and am looking at alternatives, but independent
>> third-party reviews are difficult to come by (at least according to my
>> search skills).
>>
>> Any suggestions on where to go for reviews, or personal recommendations?
>>
>> Bill Braun
>
> Bill,
>
> I have been using Microsoft Security Essentials on all my computers for

> some time...

That would be my choice.
In for a M�, in for a M$...

[Bill B]

On 3/19/2012 12:54 PM, David E. Ross wrote:
> On 3/19/12 6:28 AM, Bill B wrote:
>> Currently have Norton Internet Security 2011 on XP, SP3. Does OK speed
>> wise on the desktops but has slowed the laptop to a crawl.
>>
>> It is time to renew, and am looking at alternatives, but independent
>> third-party reviews are difficult to come by (at least according to my
>> search skills).
>>
>> Any suggestions on where to go for reviews, or personal recommendations?
>>
>> Bill Braun
>
> My favorite independent PC shop strongly recommends a combination of the
> freeware versions of AVG and Malwarebytes.
>
> AVG Anti-Virus Free 2012 remains running in the background,
> automatically scanning files being accessed and E-mail activity. See
> <http://free.avg.com/us-en/download-free-all-product>.
>
> Malwarebytes Anti-Malware focuses on worms, trojans, rootkits, rogues,
> dialers, and spyware. The freeware version has to be manually started
> for each scan. See<http://www.malwarebytes.org/>.

I already have MAM set up as a nightly scheduled task.

So from the suggestions made, there might be advantages to breaking
apart the behemoth "one program does everything" and go down the path of
multiple, smaller programs.

[Bill B]

There isn't any connection; but this is the mozilla.general group, so
there is some latitude on topics, plus, the mean knowledge level of the
regulars here is pretty darn high.

Thanks for the suggestions.

Bill

[JAS]

Jay Garcia wrote:
> On 19.03.2012 09:43, Bill B wrote:
>
> --- Original Message ---
>
>> From what I have read the Kaspersky AV program is separate from the IS
>> program (which in turn includes the AV feature). Are we talking the same
>> thing, Jay?
> The AV program is separate and that is what I use. It also integrates
> into Firefox quite well with the Kaspersky URL Advisor extension. KIS is
> the suite but I don't need or use it.
>

I use the Kaspersky Anti-Virus 2012 on my Windows XP Pro SP3 on a Sony
Vaio Intel R Pentium M with a 2.00GHz processor with 2 GB Ram, if I have
KAV load at start up it takes upward to 3 min for Windows to load and if
I disable it at start up and load it after windows load it only takes 1
min to load--is this normal? Otherwise I like KAV very well but if I
have it to scan on idle it consumes 100% of the CPU so I have it not to
scan on idle.

--
You either teach people to treat you with dignity and respect, or you don't. This means you are partly responsible for the mistreatment that you get at the hands of someone else.

[rebro]

Am 19.03.2012 18:27, schrieb clay:
[snip]

>
> [those really in the know, run a VM. I'm not that savvy...]

Have a try! It's not that tricky and gives you a lot of opportunities.
-rebro

[s|b]

On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 09:28:03 -0400, Bill B wrote:

> Any suggestions on where to go for reviews, or personal recommendations?

avast! Free Antivirus

ATM it is /the/ biggest (free) antivirus software. Been using it for
years.

--
s|b

[Ron Hunter]

Yes. It tries to minimize conflict with normal operations. That said,
it will warn of an infection (after it has prevented it). It updates
silently when your computer is idle.
Right now, it has a 7meg memory load, and zero cpu usage since it
operates on things coming into the computer, or going to/from disk. I
regularly found NIS using 20% of my cpu when I wasn't doing anything.

[Ron Hunter]

Bigger than MSE which now comes with win7 and WinXP?

[Bill B]

On 3/19/2012 2:12 PM, JAS wrote:
> Jay Garcia wrote:
>> On 19.03.2012 09:43, Bill B wrote:
>>
>> --- Original Message ---
>>
>>> From what I have read the Kaspersky AV program is separate from the IS
>>> program (which in turn includes the AV feature). Are we talking the same
>>> thing, Jay?
>> The AV program is separate and that is what I use. It also integrates
>> into Firefox quite well with the Kaspersky URL Advisor extension. KIS is
>> the suite but I don't need or use it.
>>
> I use the Kaspersky Anti-Virus 2012 on my Windows XP Pro SP3 on a Sony
> Vaio Intel R Pentium M with a 2.00GHz processor with 2 GB Ram, if I have
> KAV load at start up it takes upward to 3 min for Windows to load and if
> I disable it at start up and load it after windows load it only takes 1
> min to load--is this normal? Otherwise I like KAV very well but if I
> have it to scan on idle it consumes 100% of the CPU so I have it not to
> scan on idle.

I did run across some stats that rated different AV and IS programs for
their effect on boot times. Although there are large differences
percentage wise, in real terms they all appear to add between 10 and 30
seconds to the boot time of a PC with no AV or IS protection.

Bill

[Bill B]

In Process Explorer it is very active but rarely going above 3%.

[F1...@nospampobox.com]

On 3/19/2012 8:03 AM On a whim, David H. Lipman pounded out on the keyboard

> From: "Bill B"<bbr...@basicbusinesssim.invalid>
>
>> Currently have Norton Internet Security 2011 on XP, SP3. Does OK speed
>> wise on the desktops but has slowed the laptop to a crawl.
>>
>> It is time to renew, and am looking at alternatives, but independent
>> third-party reviews are difficult to come by (at least according to my
>> search skills).
>>
>> Any suggestions on where to go for reviews, or personal recommendations?
>>
>> Bill Braun
>
> http://www.av-comparatives.org/
>
> My choice and suggested software is Avira AntiVir.
>

I used and recommended AntiVir for years until last year. A major
update started with annoying pop-ups on every machine, and I grew tired
of it. No more.


Terry
--
Anti-spam measures are included in my email address.
Delete NOSPAM from the email address after clicking Reply.

[F1...@nospampobox.com]

On 3/19/2012 8:55 AM On a whim, Bill B pounded out on the keyboard

I now recommend and install MS SE. I DON'T recommend any AV program
that installs toolbars into browsers. I have to respond to upset
Firefox users daily with their complaints of how a Firefox update
disabled their Norton/McAfee/AVG/YOU NAME IT toolbar. Completely
unnecessary.

[Ron Hunter]

That, of course, depends of the speed of the processor, and disk.

[s|b]

On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 13:29:55 -0500, Ron Hunter wrote:

> > avast! Free Antivirus
> >
> > ATM it is /the/ biggest (free) antivirus software. Been using it for
> > years.

> Bigger than MSE which now comes with win7 and WinXP?

According to this (Dutch) article, it is:

<https://secure.security.nl/artikel/40769/1/Avast_populairste_virusscanner_ter_wereld.html>

<quote>

Avast Free is de populairste virusscanner ter wereld, gevolgd door
Microsoft Security Essentials. Dat blijkt uit cijfers van
onderzoeksbureau OPSWAT.

</quote>

<translation>

Avast Free is the most popular virusscanner in the world, followed by
Microsoft Security Essentials. This is shown by figures from the
research team (?) OPSWAT

</translation>

The link to OPSWAT:
<http://www.opswat.com/sites/default/files/OPSWAT-market-share-report-march-2012.pdf>

BTW I have XP, there's no MSE. (Must have unchecked in the updates. :-)

--
s|b

[Good Guy]

Bill B wrote:
> Currently have Norton Internet Security 2011 on XP, SP3. Does OK speed
> wise on the desktops but has slowed the laptop to a crawl.
>
> It is time to renew, and am looking at alternatives, but independent
> third-party reviews are difficult to come by (at least according to my
> search skills).
>
> Any suggestions on where to go for reviews, or personal recommendations?
>
> Bill Braun

For windows go for Microsoft Security Essential. It is free and it does
what it says on the tin.

You should also consider installing free edition of Mcaffee Site
Advisor. This will warn you before you click on any links that are
considered to be malicious.

Good luck.

[Jay Garcia]

On 19.03.2012 13:12, JAS wrote:

--- Original Message ---

> Jay Garcia wrote:
>> On 19.03.2012 09:43, Bill B wrote:
>>
>> --- Original Message ---
>>
>>> From what I have read the Kaspersky AV program is separate from the IS
>>> program (which in turn includes the AV feature). Are we talking the same
>>> thing, Jay?
>> The AV program is separate and that is what I use. It also integrates
>> into Firefox quite well with the Kaspersky URL Advisor extension. KIS is
>> the suite but I don't need or use it.
>>
> I use the Kaspersky Anti-Virus 2012 on my Windows XP Pro SP3 on a Sony
> Vaio Intel R Pentium M with a 2.00GHz processor with 2 GB Ram, if I have
> KAV load at start up it takes upward to 3 min for Windows to load and if
> I disable it at start up and load it after windows load it only takes 1
> min to load--is this normal? Otherwise I like KAV very well but if I
> have it to scan on idle it consumes 100% of the CPU so I have it not to
> scan on idle.
>

You must have something else loading because I have very close to the
same system and XP takes less than a minute to load w/KAV installed.
Same for my Son. I have KAV set to run every night with a full scan, and
scan for incoming mail, that's it.

Try disabling the scan on idle and then exit/restart Windows, see if
that makes the difference.

[Bill B]

Here are the reviews/comparisons I was able to find. There is a mix and
match of 2011 and 2012 reviews.

Antivirus Software Product Comparison | Antivirus | Reviews
http://www.computer-security-review.org/reviews/antivirus/antivirus-software-product-comparison.html

Compare Internet Security Software reviews and prices at NextAdvisor.com
http://www.nextadvisor.com/internet_security_software/compare.php

AV Comparatives
http://www.av-comparatives.org/en/comparativesreviews/summary-reports
(Click on Summary Report 2011, a pdf file.)

If I find others I'll add them.

Bill Braun

[Bill B]

What do you use for internet security )firewall and such)?

[David H. Lipman]

From: <F1...@NOSPAMpobox.com>

> On 3/19/2012 8:03 AM On a whim, David H. Lipman pounded out on the
> keyboard
>
>> From: "Bill B"<bbr...@basicbusinesssim.invalid>
>>
>>> Currently have Norton Internet Security 2011 on XP, SP3. Does OK speed
>>> wise on the desktops but has slowed the laptop to a crawl.
>>>
>>> It is time to renew, and am looking at alternatives, but independent
>>> third-party reviews are difficult to come by (at least according to my
>>> search skills).
>>>
>>> Any suggestions on where to go for reviews, or personal recommendations?
>>>
>>> Bill Braun
>>
>> http://www.av-comparatives.org/
>>
>> My choice and suggested software is Avira AntiVir.
>>
> I used and recommended AntiVir for years until last year. A major update
> started with annoying pop-ups on every machine, and I grew tired of it.
> No more.
>
> Terry

Either you block them from loading (as I do) or pay for the software.

http://www.elitekiller.com/files/disable_antivir_nag.htm

--
Dave
Multi-AV Scanning Tool - http://multi-av.thespykiller.co.uk
http://www.pctipp.ch/downloads/dl/35905.asp

[Jay Garcia]

On 19.03.2012 16:53, Bill B wrote:

--- Original Message ---

> What do you use for internet security )firewall and such)?

Hardware firewall - Firebox 1000. For internet security I use my brain. ;-)

[Cy Burnot]

F1...@NOSPAMpobox.com has written on 3/19/2012 3:00 PM:

> I now recommend and install MS SE. I DON'T recommend any AV program
> that installs toolbars into browsers.

I don't know of any that do it without allowing you to opt out.

> I have to respond to upset
> Firefox users daily with their complaints of how a Firefox update
> disabled their Norton/McAfee/AVG/YOU NAME IT toolbar. Completely
> unnecessary.

Do you ever ask what they get from their AV toolbar? They may think it's
not working unless there is a toolbar in their browser!

[JAS]

I use Windows Firewall and access through a router and I have the scan
on idle disabled. I will check what all is enabled on start up, this on
on a Sony laptop VGN-BX540B, I shutdown every evening and boot every
morning.

[Ron Hunter]

I don't trust anything from McAfee. Web of Trust extension does the job
just fine.

[Daniel]

Cy Burnot wrote:
> W3BNR has written on 3/19/2012 11:08 AM:
>> On 3/19/2012 9:28 AM Bill B submitted the following:

>>> Currently have Norton Internet Security 2011 on XP, SP3. Does OK speed wise on
>>> the desktops but has slowed the laptop to a crawl.
>>>
>>> It is time to renew, and am looking at alternatives, but independent third-party
>>> reviews are difficult to come by (at least according to my search skills).
>>>
>>> Any suggestions on where to go for reviews, or personal recommendations?
>>>
>>> Bill Braun
>>

>> I've had good luck with Microsoft Security Essentials (for Windows, of course)
>> and the FREE Avast Anti-virus.
>
> Those plus Malwarebytes AntiMalware.

Cy, some time ago, when my sister was having probs with her computer
(that's my story .....), Ed (W3BNR) recommended I install Malwarebytes,
which I have done, on my dual boot laptop as well.

However, I was expecting it to be permanently running in the background,
however I cannot find what to tick to get it to start at Start-Up.
Checked out several times. When I want to run it, I click on the icon
and run a check.

What am I missing, please??

--
Daniel

[W3BNR]

On 3/20/2012 5:56 AM Daniel submitted the following:

> Cy Burnot wrote:
>> W3BNR has written on 3/19/2012 11:08 AM:
>>> On 3/19/2012 9:28 AM Bill B submitted the following:
>>>> Currently have Norton Internet Security 2011 on XP, SP3. Does OK speed wise on
>>>> the desktops but has slowed the laptop to a crawl.
>>>>
>>>> It is time to renew, and am looking at alternatives, but independent
>>>> third-party
>>>> reviews are difficult to come by (at least according to my search skills).
>>>>
>>>> Any suggestions on where to go for reviews, or personal recommendations?
>>>>
>>>> Bill Braun
>>>
>>> I've had good luck with Microsoft Security Essentials (for Windows, of course)
>>> and the FREE Avast Anti-virus.
>>
>> Those plus Malwarebytes AntiMalware.
>
> Cy, some time ago, when my sister was having probs with her computer (that's my
> story .....), Ed (W3BNR) recommended I install Malwarebytes, which I have done,
> on my dual boot laptop as well.

Must have been another Ed, Daniel. I've never used Malwarebytes and do not know
anyone that does. In DOS days I used the free f-prot and in the early Windows
game I used Norton (back when Peter ran it - before Symantec ruined it).
In the not to distant pass it was the free Zone Alarm and AVG. The last few
years its been Microsoft Security Essentials along with the free Avast AV.

> However, I was expecting it to be permanently running in the background, however
> I cannot find what to tick to get it to start at Start-Up. Checked out several
> times. When I want to run it, I click on the icon and run a check.
>
> What am I missing, please??
>


--

Ed, W3BNR
http://JonesFarm.us/W3BNR
Powered by SeaMonkey: http://www.seamonkey-project.org/

"Here's to our wives and sweethearts -- may they never meet."
-John Bunny

[Daniel]

Daniel wrote:
> Cy Burnot wrote:
>> W3BNR has written on 3/19/2012 11:08 AM:
>>> On 3/19/2012 9:28 AM Bill B submitted the following:
>>>> Currently have Norton Internet Security 2011 on XP, SP3. Does OK
>>>> speed wise on
>>>> the desktops but has slowed the laptop to a crawl.
>>>>
>>>> It is time to renew, and am looking at alternatives, but independent
>>>> third-party
>>>> reviews are difficult to come by (at least according to my search
>>>> skills).
>>>>
>>>> Any suggestions on where to go for reviews, or personal
>>>> recommendations?
>>>>
>>>> Bill Braun
>>>
>>> I've had good luck with Microsoft Security Essentials (for Windows,
>>> of course)
>>> and the FREE Avast Anti-virus.
>>
>> Those plus Malwarebytes AntiMalware.
>
> Cy, some time ago, when my sister was having probs with her computer

> (that's my story .....), Ed (W3BNR) recommended I install Malwarebyte.....s,

> which I have done, on my dual boot laptop as well.
>
> However, I was expecting it to be permanently running in the background,
> however I cannot find what to tick to get it to start at Start-Up.
> Checked out several times. When I want to run it, I click on the icon
> and run a check.
>
> What am I missing, please??
>

......and, of course, moments after posting this, I read David E. Ross'
post, further down, where he states the free version has to be manually
started!!

Guess which version I have????

--
Daniel

[Bill B]

Malwarebytes AntiMalware is not a terminate and stay resident program.
It only works through manual starts.

That said, it has a number of command line switches that makes it very
well suited to adding it to Scheduled Tasks. I run a MAM scan every
night, and I run the updater once per week, both through Scheduled
Tasks. The MAM help is pretty good. I recommend it.

I used to run Spybot Search and Destroy. For a good long while about one
year ago it stopped publishing updates, and I heard in the wind that the
project had gone flat. But recently, on a whim, I ran the updater and
they seem to have picked back up again.

One feature I really like about Spybot is the "Inoculate" feature, where
it sets cookie blocks in browsers to prevent the browser from picking up
malware in the first place. I run it occasionally now, but rely on MAM
for routine scans.

Bill Braun

[Bill B]

Nice. Never knew it existed. Is that truly their own search engine or an
overlay on top of any search engine I choose?

Bill

[Jeff Layman]

On 19/03/2012 13:28, Bill B wrote:
> Currently have Norton Internet Security 2011 on XP, SP3. Does OK speed
> wise on the desktops but has slowed the laptop to a crawl.
>
> It is time to renew, and am looking at alternatives, but independent
> third-party reviews are difficult to come by (at least according to my
> search skills).
>
> Any suggestions on where to go for reviews, or personal recommendations?

First thing I would ask is why is the laptop so much slower than the
desktop (I assume that the laptop is running Win7)? If the processors
and memory are more-or-less the same, are the NIS options the same?Are
you asking tit to do more things on the laptop? Has this suddenly
started to occur (as I assume that you have been running NIS on the
laptop for around a year), or has it always been slow? Are you sure it
is NIS? Have you checked what service is using the CPU in Task Manager?

Have you tried asking Norton Support if they have any suggestions as to
why the laptop is so slow, while the desktop is OK.

--

Jeff

[Daniel]

W3BNR wrote:
> On 3/20/2012 5:56 AM Daniel submitted the following:
>> Cy Burnot wrote:
>>> W3BNR has written on 3/19/2012 11:08 AM:
>>>> On 3/19/2012 9:28 AM Bill B submitted the following:
>>>>> Currently have Norton Internet Security 2011 on XP, SP3. Does OK speed wise on
>>>>> the desktops but has slowed the laptop to a crawl.
>>>>>
>>>>> It is time to renew, and am looking at alternatives, but independent
>>>>> third-party
>>>>> reviews are difficult to come by (at least according to my search skills).
>>>>>
>>>>> Any suggestions on where to go for reviews, or personal recommendations?
>>>>>
>>>>> Bill Braun
>>>>
>>>> I've had good luck with Microsoft Security Essentials (for Windows, of course)
>>>> and the FREE Avast Anti-virus.
>>>
>>> Those plus Malwarebytes AntiMalware.
>>
>> Cy, some time ago, when my sister was having probs with her computer (that's my
>> story .....), Ed (W3BNR) recommended I install Malwarebytes, which I have done,
>> on my dual boot laptop as well.
>
> Must have been another Ed, Daniel. I've never used Malwarebytes and do not know
> anyone that does. In DOS days I used the free f-prot and in the early Windows
> game I used Norton (back when Peter ran it - before Symantec ruined it).
> In the not to distant pass it was the free Zone Alarm and AVG. The last few
> years its been Microsoft Security Essentials along with the free Avast AV.
>

My mistake, then. Sorry!

--
Daniel

[Bill B]

Fair points, all. The laptop is old, there's now doubt that it is a
clunker in its own right. The only test I did on the laptop, which may
be suspect, is to clock browser load times with NIS 2011 on, then turn
off all the features (individually, in the control center) and load the
same pages. With NIS on page load was around 6 - 10 seconds, off about 2
- 3 seconds.

I realize that isn't terribly scientific, but seemed to me to be a
decent basis for looking at NIS as the source of some performance
deterioration.

I use Performance Explorer (from MS, picks up where Task Manager leaves
off). I have noted times when the System Service chugs along at about
30% of CPU, but that is devilishly difficult to unpack to get at the
details, so I have not dug too deep into that.

While the browser is closed or sitting dormant, NIS fluctuates between 0
- 3%.

Bill Braun

[Jay Garcia]

On 20.03.2012 04:56, Daniel wrote:

--- Original Message ---

FWIW, I've tried Malware Bytes twice, a few months ago and earlier
today. Both times, during a scan, it locked up the computer big time, no
way to get out other than to reboot.

XP SP3 and after a clean boot, nothing else running other than what is
necessary, no AV or other spyware app running in the background.

[David H. Lipman]

From: "Daniel" <dx...@albury.nospam.net.au>

I am a former Malwarebytes employee.

To run in the background you have to apply a paid-for license which will
turn the free version into MBAM Professional. Then you can enable the
protection mode and schedule automatic updates. Otherwise MBAM is resident
and is only an "On Demand" anti malware scanner.

[jetjock]

I know I'm late to the party here, but cNet just rated Bit Defender
Internet Security Suite as the best _*paid*_ program and Avast Free as
the best free program.

--

>>>>>>>>>>jetjock<<<<<<<<<<

[Bill B]

What really gets my hackles up is CNET's habit of mixing "sponsored
matches" in the rankings. So if I sort for Editor's Ratings, what do I
make of a "sponsored match" in the list - is it a true pick or are they
giving advertisers their money's worth?

That said, if we are talking the same thing, when I go to Internet
Security Software Suites, and select Sort By: Editor's Rating, it
displays 1. NIC 2012 (sponsored, reviewed Sep, 2011), 2. Kaspersky
(reviewed Aug, 2011), 3. Avast (reviewed Mar, 2012), 4. Bitdefender
Total Security (sponsored, reviewed Oct, 2011)), 5. BitDefender Internet
Security (sponsored, reviewed Oct, 2011).

What do I make of that?

Bill Braun

[F1...@nospampobox.com]

On 3/19/2012 3:06 PM On a whim, David H. Lipman pounded out on the keyboard

> From:<F1...@NOSPAMpobox.com>
>
>> On 3/19/2012 8:03 AM On a whim, David H. Lipman pounded out on the
>> keyboard
>>
>>> From: "Bill B"<bbr...@basicbusinesssim.invalid>
>>>
>>>> Currently have Norton Internet Security 2011 on XP, SP3. Does OK speed
>>>> wise on the desktops but has slowed the laptop to a crawl.
>>>>
>>>> It is time to renew, and am looking at alternatives, but independent
>>>> third-party reviews are difficult to come by (at least according to my
>>>> search skills).
>>>>
>>>> Any suggestions on where to go for reviews, or personal recommendations?
>>>>
>>>> Bill Braun
>>> http://www.av-comparatives.org/
>>>
>>> My choice and suggested software is Avira AntiVir.
>>>
>> I used and recommended AntiVir for years until last year. A major update
>> started with annoying pop-ups on every machine, and I grew tired of it.
>> No more.
>>
>> Terry
>
> Either you block them from loading (as I do) or pay for the software.
>
> http://www.elitekiller.com/files/disable_antivir_nag.htm
>

Since I had installed it on a lot of client machines, I was almost
embarrassed when I started getting the calls. Blocking isn't the
answer. I sent in the reason to Avira after each removal. Maybe
they'll get the hint.

There are too many free ones out there that don't pester users.

[F1...@nospampobox.com]

On 3/19/2012 4:08 PM On a whim, Cy Burnot pounded out on the keyboard

> F1...@NOSPAMpobox.com has written on 3/19/2012 3:00 PM:
>
>> I now recommend and install MS SE. I DON'T recommend any AV program
>> that installs toolbars into browsers.
>
> I don't know of any that do it without allowing you to opt out.
>

Don't use them so I can't say.

>> I have to respond to upset
>> Firefox users daily with their complaints of how a Firefox update
>> disabled their Norton/McAfee/AVG/YOU NAME IT toolbar. Completely
>> unnecessary.
>
>
> Do you ever ask what they get from their AV toolbar? They may think it's
> not working unless there is a toolbar in their browser!

When Firefox updates, the warning makes them think they're unprotected.
I assure them that's not the case, but some toolbars, like Norton
IdentitySafe, store passwords for sites, and when that gets disabled,
users feel unable to access their sites. McAfee has some Site Advisor
that users feel they HAVE to have.

I try to tell them most features aren't needed, but it's still
frustrating for them.

[Jeff Layman]

Well, it might be of use to switch NIS off for a while and try other
(free?) AVs to see what they do.

> I use Performance Explorer (from MS, picks up where Task Manager leaves
> off). I have noted times when the System Service chugs along at about
> 30% of CPU, but that is devilishly difficult to unpack to get at the
> details, so I have not dug too deep into that.

Do you mean Process Explorer? I think that in this case Task Manager
may be a simpler option - just have it running when you start browsing
and watch what happens in the CPU column.

> While the browser is closed or sitting dormant, NIS fluctuates between 0
> - 3%.

Seems reasonable.

--

Jeff

[Bill B]

Hah! Yes, that is what I meant. Thanks.

Bill

[Cy Burnot]

Daniel has written on 3/20/2012 5:56 AM:

To get the memory-resident version, you need to cough up $25.

[Cy Burnot]

Bill B has written on 3/20/2012 7:00 AM:

<snip>

> Malwarebytes AntiMalware is not a terminate and stay resident program.
> It only works through manual starts.

FREE Malwarebytes AntiMalware is not a TSR. PAID MBAM is TSR.

[Cy Burnot]

Jay Garcia has written on 3/20/2012 11:21 AM:

<snip>

> FWIW, I've tried Malware Bytes twice, a few months ago and earlier
> today. Both times, during a scan, it locked up the computer big time, no
> way to get out other than to reboot.
>
> XP SP3 and after a clean boot, nothing else running other than what is
> necessary, no AV or other spyware app running in the background.

<http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110806152546AA2kGo5>

[Ron Hunter]

I believe they just look at what comes in, recognize URLs, and put their
little icon on the end.
It adds quite a lot of stuff to the profile last I looked.

[Ron Hunter]

Laptops often have less memory, and slower processors. Mine, for
instance, runs a single core processor at 2.2Ghz, and has only 2GB of
ram. My desktop runs a 2.6GHz dual core processor with 4GB of RAM. Big
difference in total resources.

[Ron Hunter]

Much depends on what is running. If you are opening a lot of files,
then NIS will take more CPU time checking the files. Disk drive speed
is also important to the overall time cost.
When I removed NIS from this machine, the boost in speed was immediately
noticeable, and fairly dramatic.

[Ron Hunter]

I find Process Lasso to be much better than Win7's task manager, and
updates almost 2 or three times a week. I also keep System Explorer
loaded all the time. The little mouse-over popup displays the graph of
CPU usage, and the two or three top users of the CPU.

[Bill B]

I have enough under the hood on the desktops not to get my knickers
twisted over them, but if I could speed up the aging laptop a titch I'd
be a happy camper.

[Bill B]

Took a quick look at a screen shot for System Explorer...looks pretty
comparable to Process Explorer. Anything that sticks out for you that is
a distinct advantage?

[Ron Hunter]

Generally speaking, adding RAM is the least expensive upgrade one can
add to help all functions run faster, for the least money.
Unfortunately, many laptops use non-standard memory strips.

[Ron Hunter]

Sure, the System Explorer sits in the 'notification area', and gives me
instant Popup of memory, swap, CPU frequency, CPU usage, and the top 3
or 4 programs using CPU time, each second. I rather like that. It also
gives system uptime, and idle time.

[Cy Burnot]

Ron Hunter has written on 3/20/2012 7:53 PM:

> On 3/20/2012 1:41 PM, Bill B wrote:

<snip>

>> Took a quick look at a screen shot for System Explorer...looks pretty
>> comparable to Process Explorer. Anything that sticks out for you that is
>> a distinct advantage?

> Sure, the System Explorer sits in the 'notification area', and gives me
> instant Popup of memory, swap, CPU frequency, CPU usage, and the top 3
> or 4 programs using CPU time, each second. I rather like that. It also
> gives system uptime, and idle time.

If you minimize PE, it will sit in the notification area.

[GerardJan]

s/PE/? gringo?

> If you minimize PE, it will sit in the notification area.

--
Vink

[GerardJan]

pl. yes that is true, but i don´t have my YourHosting contract at hand,
I asked them to send a copy by surface mail. Last week

--
Vink

[Ron Hunter]

Yes, but compare the mouse-over popup information it provides with what
System Explorer provides. Vast difference.
And, yes, I have both on my system, but don't run the process Explorer
very often.

[David H. Lipman]

From: "Ron Hunter" <rphu...@charter.net>

>>> Much depends on what is running. If you are opening a lot of files, then
>>> NIS will take more CPU time checking the files. Disk drive speed is also
>>> important to the overall time cost.
>>> When I removed NIS from this machine, the boost in speed was immediately
>>> noticeable, and fairly dramatic.
>>
>> I have enough under the hood on the desktops not to get my knickers
>> twisted over them, but if I could speed up the aging laptop a titch I'd
>> be a happy camper.
> Generally speaking, adding RAM is the least expensive upgrade one can add to help all
> functions run faster, for the least money. Unfortunately, many laptops use non-standard
> memory strips.

That was true but not true Today. While Desktop and Notebook memory are different stype
modules and the notebook RAM of Yesterday was non-standardized, most notebooks have
adopted the SO-DIMM PC2 and PC3 formats.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:1GB_DDR2_SO-DIMM.png
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:4GB_DDR3_SO-DIMM.jpg

[Rick]

On 3/21/2012 10:00 AM, David H. Lipman wrote:
> From: "Ron Hunter"<rphu...@charter.net>
>
>>>> Much depends on what is running. If you are opening a lot of files, then
>>>> NIS will take more CPU time checking the files. Disk drive speed is also
>>>> important to the overall time cost.
>>>> When I removed NIS from this machine, the boost in speed was immediately
>>>> noticeable, and fairly dramatic.
>>>
>>> I have enough under the hood on the desktops not to get my knickers
>>> twisted over them, but if I could speed up the aging laptop a titch I'd
>>> be a happy camper.
>> Generally speaking, adding RAM is the least expensive upgrade one can add to help all
>> functions run faster, for the least money. Unfortunately, many laptops use non-standard
>> memory strips.
>
> That was true but not true Today. While Desktop and Notebook memory are different stype
> modules and the notebook RAM of Yesterday was non-standardized, most notebooks have
> adopted the SO-DIMM PC2 and PC3 formats.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:1GB_DDR2_SO-DIMM.png
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:4GB_DDR3_SO-DIMM.jpg
>
>
>

I am coming to like Microsoft's security essentials--aside from the fact
that it is free it has detected more bad stuff that that the paid
programs and it uses a whole lot less space on the drive.

[Bill B]

From everything I've read I am leaning in that direction. Are there any
downsides to running different internet security and anti-virus
programs? (Leaning toward Kaspersky for AV.)

Bill

[Bill B]

On 3/19/2012 2:23 PM, Ron Hunter wrote:
> On 3/19/2012 10:58 AM, Bill B wrote:
>> On 3/19/2012 11:40 AM, Ron Hunter wrote:

>>> On 3/19/2012 8:28 AM, Bill B wrote:
>>>> Currently have Norton Internet Security 2011 on XP, SP3. Does OK speed
>>>> wise on the desktops but has slowed the laptop to a crawl.
>>>>
>>>> It is time to renew, and am looking at alternatives, but independent
>>>> third-party reviews are difficult to come by (at least according to my
>>>> search skills).
>>>>
>>>> Any suggestions on where to go for reviews, or personal
>>>> recommendations?
>>>>

>>>> Bill Braun
>>>
>>> Bill,
>>>
>>> I have been using Microsoft Security Essentials on all my computers for
>>> some time. I works quietly, without much intrusion into my normal
>>> processing, and is completely trouble-free. The only things I would
>>> suggest is that if you use it, enter the Firefox and TB profiles into
>>> the 'exceptions' list, as well as the directory in which MSE itself
>>> resides as real-time scans of those can cause momentary freezes to your
>>> processing.
>>
>> One other question, Ron...you made a comment a few days ago about the
>> effect such programs have on PC performance. I gather your reference to
>> "without much intrusion" means it has a minimal footprint on performance?
>>
>> Bill
> Yes. It tries to minimize conflict with normal operations. That said, it
> will warn of an infection (after it has prevented it). It updates
> silently when your computer is idle.
> Right now, it has a 7meg memory load, and zero cpu usage since it
> operates on things coming into the computer, or going to/from disk. I
> regularly found NIS using 20% of my cpu when I wasn't doing anything.

Ron, what do you use for a firewall?

[Ron Hunter]

On 3/21/2012 10:00 AM, David H. Lipman wrote:

> From: "Ron Hunter"<rphu...@charter.net>
>
>>>> Much depends on what is running. If you are opening a lot of files, then
>>>> NIS will take more CPU time checking the files. Disk drive speed is also
>>>> important to the overall time cost.
>>>> When I removed NIS from this machine, the boost in speed was immediately
>>>> noticeable, and fairly dramatic.
>>>
>>> I have enough under the hood on the desktops not to get my knickers
>>> twisted over them, but if I could speed up the aging laptop a titch I'd
>>> be a happy camper.
>> Generally speaking, adding RAM is the least expensive upgrade one can add to help all
>> functions run faster, for the least money. Unfortunately, many laptops use non-standard
>> memory strips.
>
> That was true but not true Today. While Desktop and Notebook memory are different stype
> modules and the notebook RAM of Yesterday was non-standardized, most notebooks have
> adopted the SO-DIMM PC2 and PC3 formats.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:1GB_DDR2_SO-DIMM.png
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:4GB_DDR3_SO-DIMM.jpg
>
>
>

A step in the right direction, for sure, but I suspect there are a lot
of old laptops out there with the old memory.

[Ron Hunter]

I like that I don't have to even think about it unless it flags
something, which is rare as I avoid suspicious websites (WOT).

[Ron Hunter]

Window 7 built-in firewall. It works with MS SE. You can get 'front
ends' for it if you want to tweak it to your needs, but it has never
given me a minute of trouble.

[F1...@nospampobox.com]

On 3/21/2012 2:18 PM On a whim, Bill B pounded out on the keyboard

> From everything I've read I am leaning in that direction. Are there any
> downsides to running different internet security and anti-virus
> programs? (Leaning toward Kaspersky for AV.)
>
> Bill

Can you be more specific? You don't want to run two AV programs.

[Bill B]

On 3/21/2012 8:04 PM, F1...@NOSPAMpobox.com wrote:
> On 3/21/2012 2:18 PM On a whim, Bill B pounded out on the keyboard
>
>
>> From everything I've read I am leaning in that direction. Are there any
>> downsides to running different internet security and anti-virus
>> programs? (Leaning toward Kaspersky for AV.)
>>
>> Bill
>
> Can you be more specific? You don't want to run two AV programs.

Yes, well, typing too fast, thinking too slow.

[Bill B]

Thanks. Still running XP here, will have a look see.

[Ron Hunter]

Win XP has a workable firewall, but the Win7 firewall can control both
incoming and outgoing data (a minimum for my purposes), and still has
the anti-malware facility of MS SE, which, at least on the Win 7 OS,
also has AV facilities. It updates daily, automatically, by default.

[Bill B]

Any suggestions for third-party firewalls if I go down that path?

[David E. Ross]

If you have two or more computers connected through a common router to a
modem (cable, DSL, wireless), the router most likely has a built-in
firewall. I would not buy a router without one.

--

David E. Ross
<http://www.rossde.com/>.

Anyone who thinks government owns a monopoly on inefficient, obstructive
bureaucracy has obviously never worked for a large corporation.
© 1997 by David E. Ross

[clay]

On 03/22/2012 8:27 AM, Bill B wrote:
>...

>
> Any suggestions for third-party firewalls if I go down that path?

http://www.shorewall.net/

[rebro]

I am really satisfied with the Comodo Firewall
(http://www.softpedia.com/get/Security/Firewall/Comodo-Personal-Firewall.shtml)
-rebro

[Bill B]

Mine just came with the DSL package. Any way to test for the presence of
a router firewall?

[Bill B]

On Windows, but thank you.

[Ron Hunter]

Try Outpost. Made by a company that does firewalls for commercial use.

[Cy Burnot]

David E. Ross has written on 3/22/2012 1:09 PM:
<snip>

> If you have two or more computers connected through a common router to a
> modem (cable, DSL, wireless), the router most likely has a built-in
> firewall. I would not buy a router without one.

Even the ancient POS known as the Westell Versalink Gateway Model 327W
has a configurable firewall!

[Cy Burnot]

Bill B has written on 3/22/2012 1:59 PM:

> On 3/22/2012 1:09 PM, David E. Ross wrote:
>> On 3/22/12 8:27 AM, Bill B wrote:

<snip>

>> If you have two or more computers connected through a common router to a
>> modem (cable, DSL, wireless), the router most likely has a built-in
>> firewall. I would not buy a router without one.
>
> Mine just came with the DSL package. Any way to test for the presence of
> a router firewall?

Try looking at 192.168.1.1 in FF

[Cy Burnot]

Ron Hunter has written on 3/21/2012 3:13 AM:

SE is very nice. Maybe TMI. And I miss being able to sort in order of
start time.

[Bill B]

There are four options
CHECKED Block Anonymous Internet Requests
CHECKED Filter Multicast
UNCHECKED Filter Internat NAT Redirection (I do have a small network)
CHECKED Filter IDENT (Port 113)

Is that sufficiently secure?

[Ron Hunter]

For that, I use Process Lasso. It also assures that no program can
completely hog the system.

[jetjock]

You might try https://www.grc.com/x/ne.dll?bh0bkyd2 (Shields Up site) if
someone hasn't already suggested them.
Just read and then run the scan. It will probe your computer for any
open ports.

--

>>>>>>>>>>jetjock<<<<<<<<<<

[jetjock]

I replied to the wrong post. This should have been to one asking for a
way to test for a firewall.

--

>>>>>>>>>>jetjock<<<<<<<<<<

[Bill B]

Proved useful. With NIS firewall and AV shut off, the PC was in stealth
mode for everything - not a single hole anywhere.

[The Real Bev]

Thanks for reminding me, I haven't done this since I upgraded to FF11 or
installed Do Not Track Plus, which claims to have blocked over 35,000
tracking attempts. Everything was stealthed for me too.

--
Cheers, Bev
==================================================
Is the Pope Catholic? Do bears shit in the woods?
Does Rose Kennedy have a black dress?