From: FromTheRafters on
"badgolferman" <REMOVETHISbadgolferman(a)> wrote in message
> David Kaye, 5/28/2010,3:06:50 PM, wrote:
>> "badgolferman" <REMOVETHISbadgolferman(a)> wrote:
>> > Using an anti-virus won't really tell you how good it is. A
>> > reputable organization has to test how well it responds to malware.
>> > It sounds to me you are just asking for an evaluation of its user
>> > interface.
>> There are lots of people posting on these groups who have inside
>> knowledge as to how good these products are. For instance, we all
>> agree that Norton and McAfee are useless, that MBAM is excellent, and
>> that AVG is so-so.
> I'm not sure we all agree on any of those things. For one thing,
> Norton 2010 has been rated very highly by AV-Comparatives this last
> time and the Symantec Corporate versions have always been decent.

I can agree with that.

Aside from that, David's statement has compared three apples and an
orange. MBAM doesn't even try to be a comprehensive virus detector
(yet) - while the others do.

From: FromTheRafters on
"~BD~" <.BoaterDave(a)> wrote in message
> "FromTheRafters" <erratic(a)> wrote in message
> news:htpmp1$ddi$1(a)
> | "David Kaye" <sfdavidkaye2(a)> wrote in message
> | news:htp05s$6ba$3(a)
> | > sfdavidkaye2(a) (David Kaye) wrote:
> | >
> | >>A customer has installed Vipre and I'm curious to know if it's any
> | >>better than
> | >>MS Security Essentials. Does anybody have *actual* experience
> with
> | >>Vipre?
> | >
> | > So, I take it that the answer is no; nobody here has used it yet.
> |
> | It seems so. The fact is that I have never heard anyone except Mow
> Green
> | suggest it as one they trusted - had it not been for his post some
> time
> | back in a group far far away...I would probably not have known of
> its
> | existence.
> |
> Surely you have read this item, FTR?

Hadn't seen it. Readers might be confused by the difference between a
removal tool and an active protection AV program. Just because a tool is
recommended, that doesn't mean a security application is (McAfee's
stinger might be recommended but their AV might not). I thought David's
customer had installed a "suite" comparable to MSE. I was away from the
groups for a couple of years, and since then Ad-Aware and The Cleaner
have both become AV's and so many others have popped up that it is hard
to keep track. If Mow says Vipre is "trustworthy", I will surely take
his word for it. My trust for Mow comes only from the usenet posts of
his that I have seen.

From: FromTheRafters on
"David Kaye" <sfdavidkaye2(a)> wrote in message
> Erik Vastmasd <erik.vastm(a)sd.invalid> wrote:
>>I find that Vipre checks for updates every 4 hours or so and does a
>>every day at 11:00 AM which is configurable.
> Thank you.
>>I run a very tight computer and neither NOD32 or Vipre have ever
>>discovered and reported anything.
> This either says something good or says something bad...

My old AV never found anything, but my new AV doesn't find anything even
better. :o)

From: FromTheRafters on
"PajaP" <pajap(a)> wrote in message
> On Fri, 28 May 2010 20:14:15 -0400, "FromTheRafters"
> <erratic(a)> wrote:
>>"PajaP" <pajap(a)> wrote in message
>>> On Fri, 28 May 2010 10:36:15 GMT, sfdavidkaye2(a) (David
>>> Kaye)
>>> wrote:
>>>>A customer has installed Vipre and I'm curious to know if it's any
>>>>better than
>>>>MS Security Essentials. Does anybody have *actual* experience with
>>> No, no actual experience, but still confident enough to state
>>> categorically that MSE *is* the best.
>>> MS developed the OS. They are therefore best able to develop the
>>> software to protect the OS.
>>Non sequitur.
>>Those that started the fire should know best how to fight it? Besides,
>>viruses in particular are just programs, and the OS is designed to
>>users to execute programs of their choosing.
> Does not matter, The OS is not open source. MS will always have the
> advantage and will always be able to write the best code to run on
> their
> OS.

There is a difference between being able to write code that runs well on
a particular OS and being able to wrtie code that performs its task
well. MS is no more qualified than any other program vendor to write
code to help with security. MS is at least partially responsible for the
malware infested cesspool that the internet has become, why trust them
any more than another to write code to combat infection?

From: FromTheRafters on
"PajaP" <pajap(a)> wrote in message

No, it isn't.

Your turn.