Prev: please suggest approach t save my stuff
Next: "error loading operating system"
From: Hot-text on 23 Jan 2010 05:22
Twayne I believe you!

For I run a Server and I do not stop my Server from working so it can run a
anti-virus I can not be down 6 hours or more for that!
If a anti-virus can not work at the same time as my Server it be time to get
a new anti-virus!
and my AVAST work hard Scanning incoming and outgoing at the same time as it
Scanning for virus...
For I do not need a virus on my Server or give out a virus to my viewer PC
And Yes I WORK My HTML EDITOR AT THE SAME TIME!
and it check my files at Save!

Yes yes it Post on Top ......
I have Windows Live Mail Not a NEWS READER!!


"Twayne" <nobody(a)spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:er9hUJ6mKHA.1548(a)TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> In news:hja9de$vkh$1(a)news.eternal-september.org,
> jkneese <jkneese(a)yahoo.com> typed:
>> Is it OK to continue to work while an anti-virus (in this case,
>> Norton) is running, or should the anti-virus be given full access to
>> the computer?
>> Thanks for any help.
>
> You didn't indicate which AV your'e using, so the only possible answer is
> a "usually" kind of thing that applies to most of the known better AV
> programs. If you aren't to use the computer while It's running, I know one
> that just turns off the keyboard and mouse, while another says not to use
> the computer but does nothing to help you remember not to use it.
> Basically, check the docs that came with the AV if you're not sure.
>
>
> Usually and for all the better ones:
> Yes, you can continue to work. The only "downside" is that the AV will not
> be able to check any files you may have "in use", but those are seldom an
> issue for viruses.
>
> I think most people run deep scans with their AV, hopefully keep it fully
> updated, and leave the machine to run on its own, just to get the most
> thorough scan possible. It just seems logical to me.
> Mine for instance, runs at night after the nightly backups complete.
> But you're very unlikely to have any problems as a result of using the
> computer while it runs unless you get something that locks up the machine;
> in which case the scan might be thrown away and have to be done again. In
> such a case, check the AV in Task Manager and if it's still running, try
> to let it complete before you shut the machine down. You might glance at
> the backup folder too, to make sure it's creating the files properly.
>
> HTH,
>
> Twayne
>
>
From: Twayne on 23 Jan 2010 10:21
In news:%23fvJSC7mKHA.5700(a)TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl,
David H. Lipman <DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net> typed:
> From: "Twayne" <nobody(a)spamcop.net>
>
>> Norton AV (Symantec now) never had a low catch rate; catch rates for
>> all of them vary over time but Norton has always had a good record.
>> Their heuristics outperform most other packages too.
>
>> Resource Occupation: Was partially true once, depending on which of
>> the services you used. The actual AV was not part of that, however.
>> You seem to be mising up different products. Not true for anything
>> being sold today. 2009 and 2010 are little darlings that way.
>
>> lol, I saw what I'll bet you're basing that on. Do you beleive
>> everything you read?
>
>> http://internet-security-suite-review.toptenreviews.com/
>
>> And this one looks interesting for spyware:
>> http://anti-spyware-review.toptenreviews.com/
>
>> The internet's like the bible: You can find any positive or negative
>> you wish with the proper searching, spam or accidental discovery.
>> The only "proof" is to listen to what other reasonable people have
>> to say and then test the products in their trialware and make up
>> your own mind. It's not rocket science and since most AV vendors all
>> use the same sources for their data, they all do pretty well at most
>> things. The cowboys that reinvent the wheel seldom work out well.
>
>
>>> Suggested replacement; Avira AntiVir.
>
>>> Note questions like this one is best served in
>>> microsoft.public.security.virus
>
>> I have to take a couple minor exceptions here, namely Avira. They
>> like to use their installed base for covert BETA testing and does
>> some of its "detection" by seeing what folder certain files live in.
>> As an example, I had a setup.exe in a folder called "hospital test"
>> for a VB program I was developing. Avira detected it as a rogue and
>> wanted to delete it. I moved the file to a more expected location
>> and Avira no longer found it. Moved it back, and it was detected
>> again. Zipped it with a different name, and Avira didn't find it.
>> They were not relying on the contents of files or even the names,
>> but only WHERE some names were located. AFAICT by looking at their
>> forums just now they're still covertly beta testing by their users.
>> In other words, false positives are excessive in Avira's ware. I
>> can think of several other programs though, who could have been
>> recommended.
>
> Twayne I have been researching malware for quite a long time and have
> seen the market change over the years. I remember Norton AV prior to
> Symantec buying their software and I KNOW how there detection
> increased greatly when Peter Norton puchased Central Point Software
> and their product Central Point AV. For those who don't know, long
> before Microsoft bought RAV they oem'd CPAV for short while and
> called it MSAV.
>
> But over the years their software has lost it luster. NAV became
> bloatware and would be a major resource hog. Symantec noted that and
> yes, they reworked their product and starting with 2009 their
> software becaem less of a resource hog.
>
> However, Symantec still has a poor detection rate. PERIOD!
> I don't base that on reading 3rd party articles but personal research.

Then I'm sure you're aware that everyone, especially geographically
separated, will get differing results from running such tests.
That said, personal research is THE BEST indicator of effectiveness there
is, as long as one realizes that others may get different results.
Unfortunately most people aren't capable of it.


From: Unknown on 23 Jan 2010 11:22
Well Twayne------Is your computer set up properly??
Are you NOT using IE and OE??? Do you side with thanatoid?
"Twayne" <nobody(a)spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:OFt3FD6mKHA.1548(a)TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> In news:utTkNUvmKHA.5520(a)TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl,
> Peter Foldes <okf22(a)hotmail.com> typed:
>> thanatoid
>> And you are a complete fool for answering as to what you just did in
>> your post. Go and discuss your knowledge with your partner Twayne.
>> You are another Andrew E for giving bad advice and suggestions
>>
>>
>> "thanatoid" <waiting(a)the.exit.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:Xns9D07A3CFBC2E1thanexit(a)188.40.43.245...
>>> "jkneese" <jkneese(a)yahoo.com> wrote in
>>> news:hja9de$vkh$1(a)news.eternal-september.org:
>>>
>>>> Is it OK to continue to work while an anti-virus (in this
>>>> case, Norton) is running, or should the anti-virus be given
>>>> full access to the computer?
>>>
>>> This makes no sense, because both alternatives mean the same
>>> thing - to me, at least.
>>>
>>> Nonetheless, to sort of reply, the ONLY time it is necessary to
>>> run an AV program is to do an on-demand scan of everything you
>>> have dl'd during your last online session *AFTER disconnecting*.
>>>
>>> Running it all the time (on- or off-line) just slows down the
>>> computer. THINK before you do anything on the web. No AV program
>>> can think for you. Besides a properly set-up machine is quite
>>> safe, generally. Of course, part of a properly set-up machine is
>>> NOT using IE/OE, but I'll leave that to you to research/think
>>> about.
>>>
>>> If you are one of the people who are connected to the net 24/7,
>>> you have other problems (no offense).
>>>
>>> --
>>> The arrows are faster than rodents!
>>> - t.
>
> And there goes the childish name calling again. All because of not being
> sure enough to answer the post but wishing he was. So you resort to
> trolling instead.


From: Rick Merrill on 23 Jan 2010 17:31
jkneese wrote:
> Is it OK to continue to work while an anti-virus (in this case, Norton) is
> running, or should the anti-virus be given full access to the computer?

Yes; it is ok. Norton will grab the resources it requires.


From: thanatoid on 25 Jan 2010 01:22
"Twayne" <nobody(a)spamcop.net> wrote in
news:Os1OU9WnKHA.1548(a)TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl:

> In news:OMXPJyGnKHA.1548(a)TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl,
> Peter Foldes <okf22(a)hotmail.com> typed:
>> (plonk)
>
>
> Ohhhh, that's sure gonna teach 'em! LOL!

Yes, I found that MOST amusing...

(But I also had to work REAL hard not to start crying... It HURT
SO BAD! Another rejection! Where's my razor?)

--
The arrows are faster than rodents!
- t.
First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 1 2 3
Prev: please suggest approach t save my stuff
Next: "error loading operating system"