Try it out and post what you think. No real fancy graphics but it is awesome in it's scanning process.
June 18th, 2002, 08:11 AM
Kaspersky is OK, but mcaffee and norton are better by far. And Norton was cnet's top antivirus pick. Most pick Norton for ease of use and their always current live updates.
June 18th, 2002, 08:32 AM
The commercial implementation of Kapersky is very good. I deploy it on my network and all my clients networks unless they specify otherwise. The reason being is. It's been 100% at detecting virii on my clients machines. The best of all though, it does'nt use up as much resources as the others. You hardly even notice it's running. Thats one thing you can say about the Russians. They don't have the resources to develop and create bloatware with preaty interfaces. They make it do what it's supossed to do and thats it. Period. The newer versions even do script checking. It can be run stand alone or as a service or it has a snap in console to run it across a network. No I don't work for them but I've used them all at one time or another and Kapersky and the older F-Prot were the best I've used. McAfee and Nortons just use up to many resources running in the background. Besides Kapersky covers my Win2000 AS network and my Linux machines. I have yet to see McAfee or Norton cover Linux boxes. Which I think is a good thing, as more people go with dual boot machines you find them downloading .exe's with Linux and then placing them on shared VFat drives to be accessable over a network or the dual boot installation though their win32 platform. So it caches the entry of virii to a network regardless of where you download it.