December 12th, 2004 09:50 AM
Last time I used to have AVG and Norton Antivirus. Now I only use AVG as running two antivirus will sure use up a lot of resources and slow down your system. You may have more than one or even ten of them but make sure you only have one active in the background.
December 19th, 2004 11:20 PM
exaaaactly...lol i use 3 AV on my system at any one time...only one actually live protects though. The reason i do so is the virus definitions themselves...someone mentioned that you only need one on your system, as long as you keep it updated...? Well, not really true. Different AV programs have different definitions, and being competitors...they dont share their definitions, do they? Of course not, that would defeat the purpose of being a competitor! Last i had heard, panda titanium had something between 80 and 90 thousand definitions...kaspersky had between 90 and a 100 thousand...and mcaffee had a whoppin' 150 thousand definitions!! pretty insane, i know...lol. The 3 i use are zone alarm security suite (comes with its own AV) panda titanium and kaspersky. All are easy (for me) to use, and work well.
December 20th, 2004 04:44 AM
Just finished repairing a laptop..
2 AV progs.. NAV and McAfee
And a Crap spyware prog
Machine refused to boot to Logon/desktop
removed the Spyware crap.. no joy
uninstalled BOTH Av's .. service returned..
installed the NAV again.. all was well.. pity i can't talk the fellow into scrapping NAV and using a better AV
Didn't test any further.. so don't ask..
Never seen the interaction this bad.. but I had been warned to expect it..
"Consumer technology now exceeds the average persons ability to comprehend how to use it..give up hope of them being able to understand how it works." - Me http://www.cybercrypt.co.nr
December 20th, 2004 04:16 PM
Well thats one of the most STUPID thing i have seen you can install two AV together but why not Mcafee and Norton.... why is this i mean there may be some reason for that or its just that too companies are firing canons on each other..... Any comments why you can't install both of them..... What my guess is may be after installing one the other AV check the registry and when it finds the value it would generate tham message "please uninstall...... from the system first"
One machine can do the work of fifty ordinary men. No machine can do the work of one extraordinary man!
December 20th, 2004 07:07 PM
I think moxnix's advice is a good idea. Install one AV and then use an online scan such as Trend Micro's or Symantec's. This is exactly what I do for one of the computers I work on. They don't want to pay for an AV, so I installed AVG 7.0 (free) and have a link to Trenc Micro's and Symantec's online scan sites. I usually run all 3 because I'm not entirely confident with AVG yet. Based on it's track record, I think AVG needs some more work to become a reliable AV product.
I must be a glutton for punishment because yet again, I will defend NAV because I think it's a good product. There's the age-old complaints about it being slow, a resource hog, slow updates and expensive. Again, I will state that for some extra cash, I get very good virus protection (even with the slow updates). I just recently upgraded to NAV 2005 (on my computer) which has been great and now includes a basic firewall/program access control amongst other things. I looked around and found Norton 2005 goes for about $57 ($37 after rebate). That averages about 15 cents a day for a year. IMO, You can't even buy a new X-BOX game or go eat a nice dinner for 2 or have a good night out for less then $35 on average (in the US) but people do it all the time with reckless abandoment. The subscription renewal costs me about $30 which averages about 8 cents a day over a year. If you're not willing to spend 8 cents a day to protect your computer, then so be it. Most of the other good AV products out there are even cheaper than that (Bit Defender, NOD32, PC-Cillin). Now, as for NAV being slow and a resource hog. I will agree (I also noticed ClamWin was incredibly slow (took me 2 hours to scan one computer). If this is something that you can't deal with, there's other excellent AV's out there that are faster and just as good, if not better. Such as Bit Defender, NOD32, Kapersky, and PC-Cillin. I also agree that Norton has slow definition updates but, once Norton is updated, it will find a majority of any/all viruses with a very high consistency. From what I've noticed AVG is not consistent, even when updated with the most recent database of virus defs. I base all my opinions from research that I compiled some time ago. Read this thread here:http://www.antionline.com/showthread...hreadid=263415
Now, if you don't believe in outside sources doing the testing, download HTRegz's results here:
HTRegz (one of your very own AO members) performed his own AV testing on a computer that was ghosted and ran tests with various AV's and set up an Excel worksheet with the results. Take a look at how AVG faired vs. all the other AV's.
My apologies if I come across as an anti-AVG fanatic, these are not my intentions. But, if an AV isn't consistent and doesn't maintain at least a 90%-99% effectivness in finding virii, what good is it (free nor not)? What bothers me, is a website dedicated to security is consistently recommending AVG over products like Bit Defender, NOD32, Kapersky, PC-Cillin and Norton simply for the fact that it's free. Is AVG better than nothing? yes. Would I recommend it over spending some cash to get a reliable, dependable AV? no.
The object of war is not to die for your country but to make the other bastard die for his - George Patton
December 20th, 2004 08:53 PM
I guess that is about right. So long as you do not let them "register" they can be started manually?
What my guess is may be after installing one the other AV check the registry and when it finds the value it would generate tham message "please uninstall...... from the system first
If you cannot do someone any good: don't do them any harm....
As long as you did this to one of these, the least of my little ones............you did it unto Me.
What profiteth a man if he gains the entire World at the expense of his immortal soul?