From: Ken Blake, MVP on
On Thu, 4 Mar 2010 22:48:41 -0500, "David H. Lipman"
<DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net> wrote:

> From: "Twayne" <nobody(a)spamcop.net>
>
> | In news:Xns9D31C41672A3Dnilch1(a)130.133.4.11,
> | Nil <rednoise(a)REMOVETHIScomcast.net> typed:
> >> On 04 Mar 2010, "Unknown" <unknown(a)unknown.kom> wrote in
> >> microsoft.public.windowsxp.general:
>
> >>> He/she asked for the BEST not what you use.
>
> >> Thank you so much for your content-filled contribution.
>
> | There is no such thing as "the best" since everyone's situation and
> | environment is different, as are people's impressions and opinions. What a
> | person uses is usually going to be what they consider the "best", or they
> | wouldn't be using it. It's a silly question, actually, since there are so
> | many variables and different areas to call the "best". Best what?
>
> The best at...
>
> * catching
> * preventing
> * mitigating
> * thwarting
> * removing
>
> Malware (malicious code) while...
>
> * using the least resources
> * minimizing the performance degradation of the system
> * minimizing the learning curve
> * minimizing the usage settings confusion level
> * maximizing its overall efficacy


I completely agree, Dave. The paragraph you quoted is generally
correct when talking about most application software. But it's
completely incorrect when talking about anti-virus (or other
anti-malware) software.

When it comes to protecting yourself, the issue is which product does
the best job of protection, not which you like best.

--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP (Windows Desktop Experience) since 2003
Please Reply to the Newsgroup
From: Twayne on
In news:bg82p5hdmmad6nlld86oq175goipitrdnb(a)4ax.com,
Ken Blake, MVP <kblake(a)this.is.an.invalid.domain> typed:
> On Thu, 4 Mar 2010 22:48:41 -0500, "David H. Lipman"
> <DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net> wrote:
>
>> From: "Twayne" <nobody(a)spamcop.net>
>>
>>> In news:Xns9D31C41672A3Dnilch1(a)130.133.4.11,
>>> Nil <rednoise(a)REMOVETHIScomcast.net> typed:
>>>> On 04 Mar 2010, "Unknown" <unknown(a)unknown.kom> wrote in
>>>> microsoft.public.windowsxp.general:
>>
>>>>> He/she asked for the BEST not what you use.
>>
>>>> Thank you so much for your content-filled contribution.
>>
>>> There is no such thing as "the best" since everyone's
>>> situation and environment is different, as are people's
>>> impressions and opinions. What a person uses is usually
>>> going to be what they consider the "best", or they
>>> wouldn't be using it. It's a silly question, actually,
>>> since there are so many variables and different areas to
>>> call the "best". Best what?
>>
>> The best at...
>>
>> * catching
>> * preventing
>> * mitigating
>> * thwarting
>> * removing
>>
>> Malware (malicious code) while...
>>
>> * using the least resources
>> * minimizing the performance degradation of the system
>> * minimizing the learning curve
>> * minimizing the usage settings confusion level
>> * maximizing its overall efficacy
>
>
> I completely agree, Dave. The paragraph you quoted is
> generally correct when talking about most application
> software. But it's completely incorrect when talking about
> anti-virus (or other anti-malware) software.
>
> When it comes to protecting yourself, the issue is which
> product does the best job of protection, not which you like
> best.

Often, it turns out that one is as good as another from a scan/detect
viewpoint, but there might be vast differences in user friendliness or
results usages or how the repair is handled. There are more things to
consider with malware detectors than just the detection rate. Detection may
not be a lot of good if it also can't remove it or otherwise invalidate the
malware's intent or undo a removal which turns out to be a false hit, or a
host of other things.
Asking for people's favorites or what they like the best is a lot more
likely to bring forth good responses, but it still won't guarantee the best
for that particular querant. What it may do though is eliminate a lot of
junk by it not appearing in the responses.

HTH,

Twayne`
-
--
Life is the only real counselor; wisdom unfiltered
through personal experience does not become a
part of the moral tissue.