Posted 06 August 2005 - 03:48 AM
Posted 06 August 2005 - 04:45 AM
Posted 06 August 2005 - 05:15 AM
Posted 06 August 2005 - 06:20 AM
Also, these sites might help with your decision..but the first thing to do is GET RID OF NORTON!
Posted 06 August 2005 - 01:54 PM
Hi i help people with their computers both on line and otherwise and out of 200 that i have been to in the last 10 weeks 180 of them had nortons that was playing up or causing their system to crash.
I'm wondering what the opinions are of the people here on their firewall of choice. Right now I'm using Norton Internet Security, which includes firewall and antivirus protection as well as ad and popup blockers. My problem with it though is that it takes up a large amount of memory and has many running processes. I'm trying to decide if it's really worth scrapping Norton for a new firewall and anti-virus program. Your thoughts?
I use and got those i have seen to uninstall nortons and install avast antivirus which today got a star rating of 4 out of 5, i use windows firewall, microsoft spyware and ad-aware and i find they all work together well.
Make sure when you do uninstall nortons that you take it completely off from your system.
Posted 09 August 2005 - 08:41 PM
Posted 11 August 2005 - 04:17 AM
Two good free firewalls that I always recommend are Kerio 4.2 and Sygate. Zone Alarm is a solid performer but again has lost sight of it's origins as a firewall and has become bloated, heading down a similar path to Norton.
There are many excellent antivirus apps to choose from. The very best in terms of paid-for protection are Kaspersky and NOD32, without a doubt. If you want the very lightest resource hit from an antivirus, F-Prot wins hands-down and also gives very good protection.
If you are looking for a free antivirus, then Avast, AVG and Antivir are all very capable.
If your system has become unbearably slow, then I'd suggest ditching Norton and picking alternative protection, but if your system is performing OK, you may as well carry on with Norton until your subscription expires and then switch to an alternative setup.
Posted 15 August 2005 - 12:52 AM
As a part of my routine maintenance on a busy computer shared by 4 people, I run a free online scan 1-2 times a month as a back-up from alternative sites ( Panda ActiveScan and/or Pc-cillin Housecalls) Both have demonstrated that they are more aggressive about locating suspect issues - and earlier then NIS ...
When my current NIS expires later this year I will not renewing it, I am considering buying Panda as my antivirus and Zone Alarm as my firewall ( I am still reading up on these products but they look promising ...)
Creativity requires the courage to let go of certainties.
Posted 31 August 2005 - 05:22 PM
do you think it can protect dial up?
Posted 03 September 2005 - 03:41 PM
Also a mention of Anti-Virus, Nod32 V2 for 3 years.
Posted 07 September 2005 - 12:34 PM
Posted 07 September 2005 - 01:40 PM
Norton is crap. It's a known, proven, universal fact that applies to all their products.
If you don't want to shell out cash for antivirus and firewall products, I heartily recommend AVG and ZoneAlarm, both of which can be found in the links in my signature.
In terms of paid antivirus, I recommend Kaspersky or NOD32. Both come highly recommended and are very well regarded in the world.
Posted 12 September 2005 - 12:00 AM
Kerio's recommendation is Tiny Firewall (says they were related at one time). I'll have to start investigating.
Posted 18 September 2005 - 06:56 AM
ZA: once again, the older versions are best. 2.6 here, no problems, but 3.0 didn't want to remember any of my settings for some reason, so went back to 2.6.
On having resident AV protection, well if you can handle the performance hit then its fine I guess, but then why have a multi-gigahertz CPU at all if you're just going to use up all its capability for a piece of software that at best is going to detect <0.1% of the files as 'infected'? Seems to me that it would be better to disable the resident 'protection' and learn good computing hygiene and make this a habit, and enjoy the full capability of your hardware.
Again, just an opinion, take it for what its worth. Still, I'm only running a 350 AMD K6 here, so disabling all the needless stuff isn't optional, its mandatory, if I am to realise any performance at all.
As has been said elsewhere on this forum, security isn't a destination, its a journey, and as such is only part of a complete preventative maintenance plan that includes a daily weekly and monthly regimen if it is to be carried-out successfully. This includes educating oneself, which is something that never ends. While we all can and do disapprove of how the whole industry is taking its turns, there are still things we can do; we arent totally at their mercy yet, but it does take an effort.
Posted 18 September 2005 - 06:24 PM
Hornet 777, I had a tech tell me to just run a router instead of a software firewall (or both), but to always have the AV on--when I posed the question, those who replied said "both" is best, but software firewall AND AV resident were most important. I tried to Google your <0.1% statistic because it sounds so depressing. I couldn't find anything, but just look at my AVG resident AV and it appears to be using about 26,000K total which isn't much when I look at other (like Svchost.exe at 28,000K).
I'd be interested to know where you got the <0.1% -- but maybe in the scheme of 75,000+ files, if my math is right, then 7+ "bugs" is fairly serious . . .
I understand your concern with performance, but even with good "hygiene" intentions, I'm not sure it's a great idea to take the chance. As for ZAP, I'd rather ditch it and find something else (Kiero for now and then probably Outpost or Tiny Firewall) than run something out of date, but which has become the troublesome rogue that Norton has been. Only used Norton once, and after having to reformat the hard drive, I said goodbye forever.[/quote]
Posted 19 September 2005 - 06:20 AM
I am NOT being insulting by saying that resident AV is for stupid, lazy people who simply will not take the effort to educate themselves as to how to use their computers and the net. I am not calling names: what is meant is that all too often, peeps who run resident AV are lulled into a false sense of security, so that they are "permitted" to continue to keep doing the same unsafe things they have always done, rather than simply educate themselves and prevent problems before they occur, which will always be the wisest course.
One might say that resident AV is in itself a "preventative" measure, but I counter that with all the peeps who DO run resident AV, per the recommendation of so-called "experts," why are there still so many posts to this and other fora of infections, regardless? Clearly, something is drastically wrong with this serene picture.
I can say that running only a firewall (see above) and using IE6, I have not been infected by one single thing, save those that I am doing research on, and infect myself deliberately with (cleaning up afterward). Additionally, I only use my (huge) HOSTS file, and IESPYAD for prevention. Very simple, and it works. I only have 150MB of memory, and have everything pared down so that when Windows launches and is just sitting there, I still have 70-80MB left: plenty for surfing or whatever else.
One might also say that these so-called experts who recommend resident AV universally might see my POV as "reckless," but that would exclude the second part of my recommendation, being to put forth the effort to educate oneself, and to stop being in the habit of having things done "for" one. Furthermore, there is that distinct element of "covering one's backside" clearly in evidence here, if nothing else.
We live in a time where the sum total of the knowledge of the world is easily available to most all; how many take advantage of this? how many are capable of thinking, to be able to discern what is "true" and what not? how many instead spend all their time indulging themselves and learning nothing from their experiences with computers, the net, or "life" in general?
Lastly, I would beg all of you who read my posts to not take me as an expert in any way, shape or form: instaad I would ask you to simply try what I am talking about and go from there. If it works, fine; if not fine too. Errancy is part of being here; were it not for it, there could be no truth.
Edited by hornet777, 19 September 2005 - 06:33 AM.
Posted 19 September 2005 - 08:04 PM
We live in a time where the sum total of the knowledge of the world is easily available to most all; how many take advantage of this? how many are capable of thinking, to be able to discern what is "true" and what not? how many instead spend all their time indulging themselves and learning nothing from their experiences with computers, the net, or "life" in general? ... Errancy is part of being here; were it not for it, there could be no truth.
Well said, hornet777. I think it was Eric Howes that put out some frightening statistics earlier this year about how many "bugs" are missed by any and all preventive measures. It may or may not have been a similar percentage, but your point is well taken, particularly, "...learning nothing from their experiences . . . "life in general." Your signature quote sums much of that up.
Thanks for the insights.
Posted 20 September 2005 - 04:31 AM