Re: Kaspersky Anti-virus

"Mike Hall - MVP" <mikehall@remove_mvps.com> wrote in message
news:OAMbhWRZJHA.4424@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

> "roraniel" <roraniel@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:31E0361B-B247-4C43-A3DC-990A7830494C@microsoft.com...

>>I use Kaspersky and I am very happy with it. I tried the top three free
>>ones,
>> AVG, Avira, and Avast. I like the AVG the least. It gave me a lot of
>> false
>> virus reports.
>>
>> The other two are good but all the free ones have one or two things you
>> cannot do unless you upgrade like automatic scan or automatic update. I
>> prefer a set and forget system. Here is my security and backup setup.
>> Everything is automatic (set & forget!)
>>
>> *Kaspersky Antivirus 2009 (quick scan every day and full scan once a week
>> and the full array of protection turned on),
>> * Vista Firewall,
>> * Malewarbytes set on automatic daily (Paid version),
>> * Windows Defender set on automatic daily (Free),
>> * CCleaner set to run automatically every week (Free),
>> * PerfectDisk (defrag) set to run when screen saver is active and once a
>> month,
>> * Acronis True Image set to do incremental backup nightly.
>>
>> Randy Miller (Just a IT hobbyist)
>>
>>
>> "Mike Hall - MVP" wrote:
>>

>>> "Rodnod" <southernranger@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:4D2DD7CB-7839-4A64-B3FE-AC6CFE86646C@microsoft.com...
>>> > Would like to know if Kaspersky anti-virus is a good choice?
>>>
>>>
>>> Rather than pay, try Avast or Avira free products.. both are very good..
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Mike Hall - MVP
>>> How to construct a good post..
>>> http://dts-l.com/goodpost.htm
>>> How to use the Microsoft Product Support Newsgroups..
>>> http://support.microsoft.com/default...help&style=toc
>>> Mike's Window - My Blog..
>>> http://msmvps.com/blogs/mikehall/default.aspx
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>

>
>
> Avast, Avira, and AVG can all be scheduled to run a scan, and all of them
> update automatically. They all have other settings which can be altered
> too..
>

Avast updates on auto quite well. Avira actually isn't quite as reliable,
IMHO, as Avast free at updating and honestly, AVG free updating is pathetic.
If you don't manually update it at least once a day, there is a good chance
you wont update at all that day. AVG will look for an update once per day
automatically or if you turn the machine off then on again and then ONLY if
your broadband is already connected before AVG is loaded. It checks for an
update when it starts up. If your broadband isn't ready then it will give a
miss to looking for an update. If you keep manually updating it, though, it
actually is a better antivirus than either of the others.

While it is true that Nortons lost the plot back in 2005 and haven't gotten
back on track since, you are wrong about which is the best. Constant testing
with constantly infected machines, here, proves beyond doubt that Kaspersky
is currently number one but it shouldn't be any surprise. Most of the
world's viruses and such come from Russia where Kaspersky HQ is. So, if you
are going down a dark alley would you prefer to have a tough looking guy
next to you or a guy who is a solider in the trenches? I have consistently
found that AVG beats any of the ones you mentioned and Kaspersky beats it.

"Ken Blake, MVP" <kblake@this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote in message
news:fvc2l41oqrrqv1h394ce4ajko01s4ncu0i@4ax.com...

> On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 07:37:06 -0800, Tonyo UK
> <TonyoUK@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
>

>> You get what you pay for.

>
>
> I don't agree at all. If that were literally true, than Norton
> anti-virus, which you have to pay for, would be better than Avast and
> Avira, both of which are free.
>
> But Norton, in my view, is the worst of the anti-virus programs, and
> Avast and Avira and among the best one ones available.
>
>

>> If they are free, what is to stop the creators from
>> reducing the creativity of their programs?
>>
>> "Rodnod" wrote:
>>

>> > Would like to know if Kaspersky anti-virus is a good choice?

>
> --
> Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience
> Please Reply to the Newsgroup
>

"Apache -=CW=-" <Apache@thepc.broke.org> wrote in message
news:%23RxH6a1ZJHA.6036@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

> Kaspersky is the best although it can be cumbersome. But if you want to
> protect your system totally it's the best choice.
> It uses very little resources and keeps good track of what is going on.
> Not 100% but very close.
>

Kaspersky IS the best. It actually picks up more nasty stuff than does any
other AV program and to be honest, have their finger on the pulse more than
anyone else.

> Those freebie antivirus programs? I've tested a few of them and was not
> impressed with them. Avast
> gave me a lot of false warnings, and actually interfered with Internet
> Explorer to the point where I couldn't
> view certain web sites, such as MSN, and was a pain to remove and repair
> the changes it made to my system .

Avast has never interfered once with any testing on machines.

>
> CA Antivirus was also a freebie provided by Roadrunner, but it too
> interfered with my mail program, and corrupted
> it to the point where all of my saved email was lost. Thank goodness I had
> backed it up so I only lost a few weeks worth of
> email.

I have found, on many occasions, CA to be a real pain in the backside to
completely remove. You run the uninstall and it still leaves registry items
affecting the firewall in it. You think CA is gone but you get no internet.
It takes something like JV16 to have on hand and use to find every last
remnant of CA and manually pick them out of registry in order to get a
working machine on internet again. I wouldnt recommend nor use CA for
anything - not even toilet paper!

>
> And finally Norton, I used to be a big fan of Symantec but not any more.
> What's the point of having a malware program
> that does the same if not more damage than the malware programs it is
> supposedly designed to protect against.

I never used Nortons AV personally but on many tests have had it
consistently fail. Many years back, Nortons also bought a GREAT firewall
program call Atguard and made it their own firewall program and then stuffed
it up. The also bought a great backup program, Drive Image and made it
theirs and stuffed that up. I actually thought Ghost 9, being a recent
convert from Drive Image to Nortons, would be OK but it stuffed up badly
whereas the last official Drive Image release worked fine. I had bought
their disk editor program and used it. In every single case using Nortons
programs there was some form of stuffup so I gave up and removed all Nortons
products entirely and bought Acronis True Image and also theri Disk
Director. While Disk Director isnt fabulous (eg, if you have an image backup
from a drive that had disk errors on it and then install that image to
another drive, Disk Director keeps seeing disk errors where there are NONE
and wont, for example, expand the data to fill the disk if the disk being
written to is larger than where the data came from. You can get around that
by usign Vista's own disk tools but Disk Director should be capable of
working with it. Just doesnt.) it works better than their disk editing
software does.

It has been some time since I bothered using a Nortons product at all but I
am constantly fixing machines that have them on them and I can tell you,
they are not worth it - ANY Nortons product!

I liked the Powerquest stuff until Symantec bought and destroyed them. Ghost
was ok, but Drive Image was superior. So was Partition Magic, Lost and Found
etc...
Norton's was good back in the Dos days.


"Hugh Jeego" <id@example.com> wrote in message
news:ujaC5kNbJHA.1676@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

>
> "Apache -=CW=-" <Apache@thepc.broke.org> wrote in message
> news:%23RxH6a1ZJHA.6036@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

>> Kaspersky is the best although it can be cumbersome. But if you want to
>> protect your system totally it's the best choice.
>> It uses very little resources and keeps good track of what is going on.
>> Not 100% but very close.
>>

>
> Kaspersky IS the best. It actually picks up more nasty stuff than does any
> other AV program and to be honest, have their finger on the pulse more
> than anyone else.
>

>> Those freebie antivirus programs? I've tested a few of them and was not
>> impressed with them. Avast
>> gave me a lot of false warnings, and actually interfered with Internet
>> Explorer to the point where I couldn't
>> view certain web sites, such as MSN, and was a pain to remove and repair
>> the changes it made to my system .

>
> Avast has never interfered once with any testing on machines.
>

>>
>> CA Antivirus was also a freebie provided by Roadrunner, but it too
>> interfered with my mail program, and corrupted
>> it to the point where all of my saved email was lost. Thank goodness I
>> had backed it up so I only lost a few weeks worth of
>> email.

>
> I have found, on many occasions, CA to be a real pain in the backside to
> completely remove. You run the uninstall and it still leaves registry
> items affecting the firewall in it. You think CA is gone but you get no
> internet. It takes something like JV16 to have on hand and use to find
> every last remnant of CA and manually pick them out of registry in order
> to get a working machine on internet again. I wouldnt recommend nor use CA
> for anything - not even toilet paper!
>

>>
>> And finally Norton, I used to be a big fan of Symantec but not any more.
>> What's the point of having a malware program
>> that does the same if not more damage than the malware programs it is
>> supposedly designed to protect against.

>
> I never used Nortons AV personally but on many tests have had it
> consistently fail. Many years back, Nortons also bought a GREAT firewall
> program call Atguard and made it their own firewall program and then
> stuffed it up. The also bought a great backup program, Drive Image and
> made it theirs and stuffed that up. I actually thought Ghost 9, being a
> recent convert from Drive Image to Nortons, would be OK but it stuffed up
> badly whereas the last official Drive Image release worked fine. I had
> bought their disk editor program and used it. In every single case using
> Nortons programs there was some form of stuffup so I gave up and removed
> all Nortons products entirely and bought Acronis True Image and also theri
> Disk Director. While Disk Director isnt fabulous (eg, if you have an image
> backup from a drive that had disk errors on it and then install that image
> to another drive, Disk Director keeps seeing disk errors where there are
> NONE and wont, for example, expand the data to fill the disk if the disk
> being written to is larger than where the data came from. You can get
> around that by usign Vista's own disk tools but Disk Director should be
> capable of working with it. Just doesnt.) it works better than their disk
> editing software does.
>
> It has been some time since I bothered using a Nortons product at all but
> I am constantly fixing machines that have them on them and I can tell you,
> they are not worth it - ANY Nortons product!
>
>

"Ken Blake, MVP" <kblake@this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote in message
news:fvc2l41oqrrqv1h394ce4ajko01s4ncu0i@4ax.com...

> On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 07:37:06 -0800, Tonyo UK
> <TonyoUK@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
>

>> You get what you pay for.

>
>
> I don't agree at all. If that were literally true, than Norton
> anti-virus, which you have to pay for, would be better than Avast and
> Avira, both of which are free.
>
> But Norton, in my view, is the worst of the anti-virus programs, and
> Avast and Avira and among the best one ones available.
>
> --
> Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience
> Please Reply to the Newsgroup

What do you know about Norton 2009? I feel the same way about Norton AV,
you couldn't pay me to use it. However, Norton 2009 is re-written from the
bottom up. I tried it on one PC and found that there was no performance hit
and the scans are very fast. Even the install routine is fast, Symantec
wrote their own. I'm pleaseantly surprised by how good it works and how
non-obtrusive it is.

On Thu, 8 Jan 2009 12:28:54 -0500, "Pete Stavrakoglou"
<ntotrr@optonline.net> wrote:

>"Ken Blake, MVP" <kblake@this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote in message
>news:fvc2l41oqrrqv1h394ce4ajko01s4ncu0i@4ax.com.. .

>> On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 07:37:06 -0800, Tonyo UK
>> <TonyoUK@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
>>

>>> You get what you pay for.

>>
>>
>> I don't agree at all. If that were literally true, than Norton
>> anti-virus, which you have to pay for, would be better than Avast and
>> Avira, both of which are free.
>>
>> But Norton, in my view, is the worst of the anti-virus programs, and
>> Avast and Avira and among the best one ones available.
>>
>> --
>> Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience
>> Please Reply to the Newsgroup

>
>What do you know about Norton 2009? I feel the same way about Norton AV,
>you couldn't pay me to use it. However, Norton 2009 is re-written from the
>bottom up. I tried it on one PC and found that there was no performance hit
>and the scans are very fast. Even the install routine is fast, Symantec
>wrote their own. I'm pleaseantly surprised by how good it works and how
>non-obtrusive it is.

I've read that in a number of places, but I doubt that ANY kudos for
the product will be enough to sway my or others opinion and get me/us
to try Norton/Symantec again.

On Thu, 8 Jan 2009 12:28:54 -0500, "Pete Stavrakoglou"
<ntotrr@optonline.net> wrote:

> "Ken Blake, MVP" <kblake@this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote in message
> news:fvc2l41oqrrqv1h394ce4ajko01s4ncu0i@4ax.com...

> > On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 07:37:06 -0800, Tonyo UK
> > <TonyoUK@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
> >

> >> You get what you pay for.

> >
> >
> > I don't agree at all. If that were literally true, than Norton
> > anti-virus, which you have to pay for, would be better than Avast and
> > Avira, both of which are free.
> >
> > But Norton, in my view, is the worst of the anti-virus programs, and
> > Avast and Avira and among the best one ones available.
> >
> > --
> > Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience
> > Please Reply to the Newsgroup

>
> What do you know about Norton 2009? I feel the same way about Norton AV,
> you couldn't pay me to use it. However, Norton 2009 is re-written from the
> bottom up. I tried it on one PC and found that there was no performance hit
> and the scans are very fast. Even the install routine is fast, Symantec
> wrote their own. I'm pleaseantly surprised by how good it works and how
> non-obtrusive it is.

Thanks. I have had no personal experience with Norton 2009, but I've
heard good things about it from several people I respect. My comments
above should basically be considered applicable to pre-2009 versions,
but I'm not willing to start recommending Norton 2009 yet. It's still
too new to have confidence in, as far as I'm concerned, and since
Symantec's reputation is so terrible.

I may change my mind in the not-too-distant future, but that's the way
I feel now.

--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience
Please Reply to the Newsgroup

On Thu, 8 Jan 2009 12:28:54 -0500, "Pete Stavrakoglou"
<ntotrr@optonline.net> wrote:

>"Ken Blake, MVP" <kblake@this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote in message
>news:fvc2l41oqrrqv1h394ce4ajko01s4ncu0i@4ax.com.. .

>> On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 07:37:06 -0800, Tonyo UK
>> <TonyoUK@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
>>

>>> You get what you pay for.

>>
>>
>> I don't agree at all. If that were literally true, than Norton
>> anti-virus, which you have to pay for, would be better than Avast and
>> Avira, both of which are free.
>>
>> But Norton, in my view, is the worst of the anti-virus programs, and
>> Avast and Avira and among the best one ones available.
>>
>> --
>> Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience
>> Please Reply to the Newsgroup

>
>What do you know about Norton 2009? I feel the same way about Norton AV,
>you couldn't pay me to use it. However, Norton 2009 is re-written from the
>bottom up. I tried it on one PC and found that there was no performance hit
>and the scans are very fast. Even the install routine is fast, Symantec
>wrote their own. I'm pleaseantly surprised by how good it works and how
>non-obtrusive it is.
>

I run Vista Home Premium 64bit and I installed the Kaspersky trial
yesterday. After a full system scan it showed me a couple of files
that it said as "very dangerous." The trial would not fix them or
quarantine them. I renamed them.

This morning I started the system and after getting a black screen for
what seemed like forever, I re-booted into safe mode and restored my
system to before Kaspersky.

I just downloaded the Norton 2009 trial and it installed nicely and I
am now giving that a try,

Al