1st major problem with Kaspersky suite

[oofki]

Bad algos ftl and aggravation!

[JPnyc]

Shouldn't adding it to trusted sites make a difference? Every firewall or AV has some type of similar designation

[oofki]

Yes it should. But he said he never looked into that.

[Heart Xlr8r]

I'm real sorry I haven't been on in a long time, please don't hold it against me,

On the A/V discussion, might I suggest looking up some free ones? I've heard a ton about Norton and Macafee I don't even suggest them to my customers anymore, I just don't understand why you should pay to be "Safe" from attackers/malware/spyware/viruses/trojans - you name it.

I'm not well educated in the A/V side of things, this is just what i've heard from numerous sources.

[JPnyc]

What you say is true about those 2, but the top rated AVs are pay ones, just not THOSE pay ones.

[oofki]

Norton is bloatware and I dont really have a problem with mcafee...

[JPnyc]

I did. I had McAfee suite for a bit. Came with a desktop I bought, so I figured I'd ride out the trial period. I didn't make it.

[nihil]

I don't know if it is me, but it seems as if there is a gap developing between the corporate and domestic versions of McAfee and Norton?

I really don't rate the home offerings. That said, there are numerous situations where a security suite is the way to go rather than patching together a set of freeware offerings. The latter option isn't really "granny friendly"

[JPnyc]

Not sure about McAfee's corporate entries, but that certainly true of Norton/Symantec. I know software co's that use symantec corporate, and they're not inept coders, they write very sophisticated software themselves, so their opinion is an educated one.

[oofki]

I dont know about sophisticated I would call it more bloated IMHO. Other A/V engines do an equal or better job as norton corp. and have a smaller foot print.