Antivirus recommendation

On Aug 4, 5:02 pm, "John" <J....DeleteThis@nospam.infovis.co.uk> wrote:
> Hi
>
> I need recommendation for anAntivirusfor win xp. In the past I have
> avoided Norton Internet Security as it seems to take too much system
> resources and slows the pc down. I have always used NortonAntivirus, while
> for firewall I use win xp built-in firewall and router firewall. For spy
> ware I use Windows Defender. My question is can I move to the NortonAntivirus350 without putting too much strain on resources or is plain
> NortonAntivirusstill better for reasons I have described above?
>
> Many Thanks
>
> Regards

In the newest issue of Consumer Reports magazine (sept2007) there is
an article that gives their "quick picks" of the best security
software suites. here's the list:

1. <ahref="http://trendmicro.com">Trend Micro ('PC-cillin') Internet
Security 2007 (now referred to as "Trend Micro Internet Security
2007")</a>

2. Check Point ZoneAlarm Internet Security Suite 7.0

3. McAfee Total Protection 2007

4. McAfee Internet Security Suite 2007

5. Microsoft Live OneCare

6. BitDefender Internet Security 10

7. F-Secure Internet Security 2007

8. Symantec Norton 360

9. Symantec Norton Internet Security 2007

I've been watching and reading the replies to this post with some interest
as to what different people recommend. Yes I use Norton AV 2007 and before
that 2006, 2005, .... along with System Works 2006 and Ghost. Does it slow
down my PC, NO it does not and I'm using an old 933Mhz PIII with Windows XP,
512MB of ram and three hard drives. What do I do on this old PC: Word
processing, Scanning photos and documents, touch up using Photo Shop
Elements and other photo tools, Data Base development (MS Access) along with
CounterSpy, Zone Alarm and other AV Software. So the slow down everyone
mentions just does not happen on this PC.

Does Norton's Tech. Support stink, you bet as it has gone from bad to
useless over the past few years and their knowledge base is horribly
outdated. So while I have no complaints about NAV 2007 (except Live Update,
but that's another story) I am looking at other products. Why you ask, well
Tech. Support is important to me, I can get Sunbelt Software's CounterSpy
Tech. Support with a simple phone call and one call is all it takes.
Symantec took 9 months (many calls and emails) to tell me the product
(System Works 2006) doesn't do what the previous version did and their
standard answer for NAV is uninstall and reinstall.

JS

"John" <John.DeleteThis@nospam.infovis.co.uk> wrote in message
news:OfM8ePv1HHA.1100@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> Hi
>
> I need recommendation for an Antivirus for win xp. In the past I have
> avoided Norton Internet Security as it seems to take too much system
> resources and slows the pc down. I have always used Norton Antivirus,
> while for firewall I use win xp built-in firewall and router firewall. For
> spy ware I use Windows Defender. My question is can I move to the Norton
> Antivirus 350 without putting too much strain on resources or is plain
> Norton Antivirus still better for reasons I have described above?
>
> Many Thanks
>
> Regards
>
>

Not using NIS, I'm using Norton AntiVirus 2007 (the retail shrink rap in box
version).

JS

"Leythos" <void DeleteThis @nowhere.lan> wrote in message
news:MPG.2123e6fe3e6178059898c9@adfree.Usenet.com...
> In article <#OO5qhd2HHA.5424@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl>, "JS" <@> says...
>> I've been watching and reading the replies to this post with some
>> interest
>> as to what different people recommend. Yes I use Norton AV 2007 and
>> before
>> that 2006, 2005, .... along with System Works 2006 and Ghost. Does it
>> slow
>> down my PC, NO it does not and I'm using an old 933Mhz PIII with Windows
>> XP,
>> 512MB of ram and three hard drives. What do I do on this old PC: Word
>> processing, Scanning photos and documents, touch up using Photo Shop
>> Elements and other photo tools, Data Base development (MS Access) along
>> with
>> CounterSpy, Zone Alarm and other AV Software. So the slow down everyone
>> mentions just does not happen on this PC.
>
> If you are using the default install of NIS, which is what most people
> get in a bundle (includes AV and something else), then your machine is
> most certainly giving you less time for applications because of ALL OF
> THE WORK THAT NIS IS DOING in the background while you do anything.
>
> If you've disabled features or don't have a network connection then you
> can regain some performance loss - but the loss is very real.
>
> Defrag your computer, clean as much as you can, then run test with
> internet pages seeing how long they take to open, how long it takes to
> send/recv emails with attachements, and how long it takes to open
> documents/ect. Now do uninstall NIS completely and repeat the tests, you
> should be able see the difference immediately.
>
> --
>
> Leythos
> - Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
> - Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
> drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
> spam999free DeleteThis @rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)

I have seen this before, and is one of the reasons I have lost confidence in CR.

Regards,
Bert Kinney MS-MVP Shell/User
http://bertk.mvps.org
Member: http://dts-l.org

> In the newest issue of Consumer Reports magazine (sept2007) there is
> an article that gives their "quick picks" of the best security
> software suites. here's the list:
>
> 1. <ahref="http://trendmicro.com">Trend Micro ('PC-cillin') Internet
> Security 2007 (now referred to as "Trend Micro Internet Security
> 2007")</a>
>
> 2. Check Point ZoneAlarm Internet Security Suite 7.0
>
> 3. McAfee Total Protection 2007
>
> 4. McAfee Internet Security Suite 2007
>
> 5. Microsoft Live OneCare
>
> 6. BitDefender Internet Security 10
>
> 7. F-Secure Internet Security 2007
>
> 8. Symantec Norton 360
>
> 9. Symantec Norton Internet Security 2007

On Wed, 08 Aug 2007 16:01:27 -0400, Bert Kinney <bert RemoveThis @NSmvps.org>
wrote:

> I have seen this before, and is one of the reasons I have lost confidence in CR.


I think CR's reviews are accurate and very useful in many areas. I
trust them when it comes to things like appliances and cars, for
example, but not for some other things. Among the things I don't trust
them for are computers and computer-related products.


> > In the newest issue of Consumer Reports magazine (sept2007) there is
> > an article that gives their "quick picks" of the best security
> > software suites. here's the list:
> >
> > 1. <ahref="http://trendmicro.com">Trend Micro ('PC-cillin') Internet
> > Security 2007 (now referred to as "Trend Micro Internet Security
> > 2007")</a>
> >
> > 2. Check Point ZoneAlarm Internet Security Suite 7.0
> >
> > 3. McAfee Total Protection 2007
> >
> > 4. McAfee Internet Security Suite 2007
> >
> > 5. Microsoft Live OneCare
> >
> > 6. BitDefender Internet Security 10
> >
> > 7. F-Secure Internet Security 2007
> >
> > 8. Symantec Norton 360
> >
> > 9. Symantec Norton Internet Security 2007

--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP Windows - Shell/User
Please Reply to the Newsgroup

I have Auto Protect is enabled in NAV 2007 and in fact I also have a similar
function enabled in CounterSpy, I originally though they would conflict with
each other but so far there have been no problems or slowdowns of
consequence.

JS

"Leythos" <void DeleteThis @nowhere.lan> wrote in message
news:MPG.212406e6bee12fdb9898cc@adfree.Usenet.com...
> In article <uz0hcyf2HHA.3940 DeleteThis @TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl>, "JS" <@> says...
>> Not using NIS, I'm using Norton AntiVirus 2007 (the retail shrink rap in
>> box
>> version).
>
> I've not installed 2007 since 2004, 2005, 2006 were real dogs - maybe
> they learned from their reduced sales. I bought a site license for 10
> installs of 2006 and returned it because of serious performance issues
> on a beefy windows 2000 network, same experience with 2005/2006 on many
> client computers. Symantec Corp 9/10 has been painless, very low
> resource use if you delete the AUTO-SCAN that it generates for each user
> that logs into the computer.
>
> --
>
> Leythos
> - Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
> - Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
> drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
> spam999free DeleteThis @rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)

We use AVG for networks, and find it good.

HST, these days advertising parasites and other Trojans are more of a
problem than viruses. Main security points are thus to:

Get a NAT router. Never use USB modems.

Get a more-secure browser, and take steps to prevent or discourage the use
of Internet Explorer. This is by far the most important precaution.

Never accept offfers from webpages to install 'plugins' or the like.
Instead, if you need an update, download it by typing the supplier's address
manually. That way you know you're not being spoofed into installing a Trojan.

Get a product such as Lavasoft Ad-aware, and perform regular scans for
parasites.

Ken Blake, MVP wrote:
> On Wed, 08 Aug 2007 16:01:27 -0400, Bert Kinney <bert RemoveThis @NSmvps.org>
> wrote:
>
>> I have seen this before, and is one of the reasons I have lost confidence in CR.
>
>
> I think CR's reviews are accurate and very useful in many areas. I
> trust them when it comes to things like appliances and cars, for
> example, but not for some other things. Among the things I don't trust
> them for are computers and computer-related products.

You're right Ken. It's not all bad.

Regards,
Bert Kinney MS-MVP Shell/User
http://bertk.mvps.org
Member: http://dts-l.org

On Aug 5, 5:02 am, "John" <J....RemoveThis@nospam.infovis.co.uk> wrote:
> Hi
>
> I need recommendation for an Antivirus for win xp. In the past I have
> avoided Norton Internet Security as it seems to take too much system
> resources and slows the pc down. I have always used Norton Antivirus, while
> for firewall I use win xp built-in firewall and router firewall. For spy
> ware I use Windows Defender. My question is can I move to the Norton
> Antivirus 350 without putting too much strain on resources or is plain
> Norton Antivirus still better for reasons I have described above?
>
> Many Thanks
>
> Regards

Why don't you try Kaspersky Antivirus and Security suite which is not
as heavy as Norton and has better features

Anu

John, Where do I go to check to see if microsoft is providing a virus
protection for me with windows updates
--
lovely


"John" wrote:

> Hi
>
> I need recommendation for an Antivirus for win xp. In the past I have
> avoided Norton Internet Security as it seems to take too much system
> resources and slows the pc down. I have always used Norton Antivirus, while
> for firewall I use win xp built-in firewall and router firewall. For spy
> ware I use Windows Defender. My question is can I move to the Norton
> Antivirus 350 without putting too much strain on resources or is plain
> Norton Antivirus still better for reasons I have described above?
>
> Many Thanks
>
> Regards
>
>
>

"Netta" <Netta DeleteThis @discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:A08ED28C-89A4-43C9-B54F-37480D32C3B0@microsoft.com...
> John, Where do I go to check to see if microsoft is providing a virus
> protection for me with windows updates
> --
> lovely


Microsoft Security Essentials:
http://www.microsoft.com/security_essentials/default.aspx
--

Bruce Hagen
MS-MVP [Mail]
Imperial Beach, CA

Netta wrote:
> John, Where do I go to check to see if microsoft is providing a virus
> protection for me with windows updates

You don't. Go to microsoft.com and search for Security Essentials.
Windows Updates does NOT provide you with virus protection. It seems
that you don't have *any* protection at the moment.

C

try this: http://www.avast.com
"Netta" <Netta DeleteThis @discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:A08ED28C-89A4-43C9-B54F-37480D32C3B0@microsoft.com...
> John, Where do I go to check to see if microsoft is providing a virus
> protection for me with windows updates
> --
> lovely
>
>
> "John" wrote:
>
> > Hi
> >
> > I need recommendation for an Antivirus for win xp. In the past I have
> > avoided Norton Internet Security as it seems to take too much system
> > resources and slows the pc down. I have always used Norton Antivirus,
while
> > for firewall I use win xp built-in firewall and router firewall. For spy
> > ware I use Windows Defender. My question is can I move to the Norton
> > Antivirus 350 without putting too much strain on resources or is plain
> > Norton Antivirus still better for reasons I have described above?
> >
> > Many Thanks
> >
> > Regards
> >
> >
> >