Prev: How to set schedule task?
Next: Desktop Icon Names Want to Change Color
From: Twayne on 23 Apr 2010 14:36
In news:eUkIyvk4KHA.3880(a)TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl,
Unknown <unknown(a)unknown.kom> typed:
> Don't you think you are showing YOUR age by using NIS
> instead of WSE?

As usual, nothing said of any import.


From: Unknown on 23 Apr 2010 14:45
You must be the easiest person in the world to brainwash. You keep pushing
all the useless
application garbage, I.E. Registry cleaners, Norton, Symantics.
Why don't you clean up your machine and find out how great a clean computer
runs?
"Twayne" <nobody(a)spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:%23a86sOx4KHA.4520(a)TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> In news:lu51t55a84j6q0brhovs8vr2r3216er3en(a)4ax.com,
> WaIIy <WaIIy@(nft).invalid> typed:
>> On Thu, 22 Apr 2010 12:27:53 -0600, Sardine
>> <sardineate(a)myway.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Twayne wrote:
>>>> In news:eP0pHsh4KHA.6132(a)TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl,
>>>> Bob I <birelan(a)yahoo.com> typed:
>>>>> HeyBub wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Eric wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I need to consistently download patch on following web
>>>>>>> site, but the file name keeps changing based on date,
>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>> example
>>>>>>> http://definitions.symantec.com/defs/20100421-002-x86.exe
>>>>>>> http://definitions.symantec.com/defs/yyymmdd-002-x86.exe
>>>>>>> Does anyone have any suggestions on how to code a batch
>>>>>>> file to download the patch based on specific date
>>>>>>> format?
>>>>>>> so I can set schedule task to run it. Does anyone have
>>>>>>> any suggestions? Thanks in advance for any suggestions
>>>>>>> Eric
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Even if you ARE successful, you're asking for trouble.
>>>>>> Yesterday McAfee finally caught up to Symantec in the
>>>>>> race to slow down computers.
>>>>> Slow, or KILL?
>>>>
>>>> No slowdown at all here, reasonably small footprint,
>>>> excellent speed. Actually I noticed NO difference when
>>>> NIS 2009 and now 2010 were installed. I think you guys
>>>> are behind the times. McAfee I don't know about; haven't
>>>> used them in years.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Twayne:
>>>
>>> You are correct, NIS 2010 is so much better than the last
>>> several
>>> products I've used. In fact, NIS 2010 is the only AV
>>> software that I
>>> have ever used that works so well that I will buy it again
>>> when my year ends. There are a few places where it can be
>>> purchased for a very low price.
>>>
>>> The very worst AV I ever used was Bit Defender 2009. 2008
>>> was fairly
>>> good but 2009 required almost weekly removal and
>>> re-install, just to get
>>> it to work. Their 2010 version (thankfully I didn't try)
>>> has recently crashed a huge number of computers. It
>>> deleted thousands of files from
>>> any computers running Windows 7/64.
>>>
>>> Those posting here that bad mouth NIS 2009 or 2010 are
>>> showing their
>>> age, NIS once was bloated but not now.
>>>
>>> Sardine
>>
>> NIS is one bloated POS, many, many agree.
>
> Many, many are ignorant of the last two year-titles of the product. That
> often happens to closed minds. Come back when you know what you're talking
> about.
>
>


From: Unknown on 23 Apr 2010 14:45
Ditto!
"Twayne" <nobody(a)spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:uRAOwPx4KHA.1924(a)TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> In news:eUkIyvk4KHA.3880(a)TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl,
> Unknown <unknown(a)unknown.kom> typed:
>> Don't you think you are showing YOUR age by using NIS
>> instead of WSE?
>
> As usual, nothing said of any import.
>


From: HeyBub on 23 Apr 2010 15:45
Sardine wrote:
>>
>> NIS is one bloated POS, many, many agree.
>
> Wally:
>
> What do you suggest as some of the best AV to use? What criteria do
> you use to decide?
>

I'm not Wally, but I don't think you can go wrong with Microsoft's Security
Essentials. The criteria I used are the reveiws from (presumably) unbiased
sources.

arsTechnica
http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2009/09/first-look-microsoft-security-essentials-impresses.ars

CNet
http://www.cnet.com.au/microsoft-security-essentials-339298827.htm?omnRef=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Fsearch%3Fnum%3D100%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff%26rls%3Dcom.microsoft%253Aen-us%253AIE-SearchBox%26rlz%3D1I7GGLJ_en%26q%3Dmicrosoft%2Bsecurity%2Bessentials%2Breviews%26btnG%3DSearch%26aq%3Df%26aqi%3Dg4%26aql%3D%26oq%3D%26gs_rfai%3D



On the other hand, reviewers who accept paid advertising for non-free AVs
are less impressed:
PC Mag
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2353386,00.asp

There are other, free, AV detectors: Avira and Avast have good reputations,
as do several others.


From: LD55ZRA on 23 Apr 2010 16:30


HeyBub wrote:
>
> Sardine wrote:
> >>

>
> The criteria I used are the reveiws from (presumably) unbiased
> sources.
>

This is the most stupid thing to do because reviews are reviews
posted by nutters. The Proof is all here for everybody to see:

<http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/news/historian-orlando-figes-admits-posting-savage-reviews-of-rivals-work-on-amazon-1952753.html>

<http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1266860/I-blame-wife-Top-historian-accused-rubbishing-rivals-Amazon-reviews--wife-says-SHE-did-it.html>

Either you should use your own brain by trying it on your system
and therefore taking responsibility for it or simply shut up!

I try every solutions on my system before posting here.

hth



--
THE INFORMATION IS PROVIDED "AS IS" WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY
KIND. LD55ZRA DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EITHER EXPRESSED OR
IMPLIED, INCLUDING THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND
FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. IN NO EVENT SHALL LD55ZRA
OR ITS ASSOCIATES BE LIABLE FOR ANY DAMAGES WHATSOEVER
INCLUDING DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, CONSEQUENTIAL, LOSS OF
BUSINESS PROFITS OR SPECIAL DAMAGES, EVEN IF LD55ZRA OR ITS
ASSOCIATES HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH
DAMAGES. SOME STATES DO NOT ALLOW THE EXCLUSION OR
LIMITATION OF LIABILITY FOR CONSEQUENTIAL OR INCIDENTAL
DAMAGES SO THE FOREGOING LIMITATION MAY NOT APPLY.

Copyright LD55ZRA 2010.
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4
Prev: How to set schedule task?
Next: Desktop Icon Names Want to Change Color