Kaspersky Vs. Norton/Symantec - Microsoft Windows

This is a discussion on Kaspersky Vs. Norton/Symantec - Microsoft Windows ; I upgraded to a whole new PC last month (2.8 GHz, 80 GB, WinXP-HE [SP2]). The local computer store that sold me and set up the system, installed "BitDefender 8 Standard" (30 day free trial) for introductory anti-virus protection. For ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 40

Thread: Kaspersky Vs. Norton/Symantec

  1. Kaspersky Vs. Norton/Symantec

    I upgraded to a whole new PC last month (2.8 GHz, 80 GB, WinXP-HE
    [SP2]).
    The local computer store that sold me and set up the system,
    installed "BitDefender 8 Standard" (30 day free trial) for
    introductory anti-virus protection.
    For a permanent anti-virus ("a-v") platform, the store is pushing
    Norton 2005 ("N2K5") [when I got my original PC from them in 1997,
    the suggestion--which I took--was McAfee, which I've found to be
    bloated and somewhat buggy--though part of it may have been
    exasperated by my 200 MHz, 2.1 GB dinosaur! P=) ].
    Googling around, another a-v package that seems decent is Kaspersky
    (is it pronounced "CASper Sky" or "Kass PERskee"?).
    I asked about it at the computer store and supposedly they never
    heard of Kaspersky: Given that it seems to be well known in the
    computer geek circles (including major computer magazines), I find
    the store's (supposed) lack of awareness rather suspect (though, in
    that it is a Russian company and I haven't seen their products in
    local stores, I suppose it *is* possible).
    There is an added wrinkle, however.
    On a couple of programs I've run, I've gotten the "16 bit MS-DOS
    Subsystem" error box, "C:\PROGRA~1\Symantec\S32EVNT1.DLL. An
    installable Virtual Device Driver failed Dll initialization. Choose
    'Close' to terminate the application."
    Doing a Google search, I see that it is the result of a
    faulty/corrupt Symantec (i.e., Norton) register--HUH!!!: AFAIK I
    *don't have any* Symantec programs/folders/files on my 'puter!
    But, sure enough, while visiting the registry (regarding a separate
    issue--see below), there *is* a Symantec registry folder!?!
    I had been inclined to go along with the store's N2K5 recommendation
    [though I'd probably get it at Wal-Mart, where it's $10-15 cheaper
    P=) ], but the more I think about it, the more galling it becomes to
    think that Symantec somehow had a folder (registry, yet!) preemtively
    added to the system (once again, the computer store appeared clueless,
    denying that they added it in during the setup, or even knew about it,
    and even went so far as to say, "when you install N2K5, that should
    clear things up"!).
    The only other possibility I can think of is that it is somehow related
    to and/or introduced by WinXP's SP2: The reason that I was in the
    registry was that SP2 locked out WordPad's ability to load
    "Word For Windows 6.0" ".doc" files, due to an apparent security hole.
    Could SP2 have added the Symantec folder?
    Or, is Norton the "unofficial" WinXP a-v program?

    Or...
    ....am I just paranoid and there is a perfectly legitimate reason for
    the
    Symantec folder (i.e., some other, unrelated Symantec program)?

    >From what I've read, Kaspersky appears at least as good as N2K5, though

    there *is* one page of reviews that is less than flattering:

    http://www.pcmag.com/member_ratings/...a=26455,00.asp

    Have any newly discovered issues with Kaspersky come up?

    Would it hurt to try their 30 day trial?--or, if I did decide to choose
    N2K5 or something else (or even decide on Kaspersky), would all of the
    leftover debris from the two trial versions (even after "uninstalling")
    likely create any potential conflicts/issues?

    ~Kaimbridge~

    -----
    Wanted-Kaimbridge (w/mugshot!):
    http://www.angelfire.com/ma2/digitol...nted_KMGC.html
    ----------
    Digitology-The Grand Theory Of The Universe:
    http://www.angelfire.com/ma2/digitology/index.html

    ***** Void Where Permitted; Limit 0 Per Customer. *****


  2. Re: Kaspersky Vs. Norton/Symantec

    Use AVG from www.grisoft.com it's free. Don't even think about Symantec.

    wrote in message
    news:1119036031.004379.145030@f14g2000cwb.googlegr oups.com...
    > I upgraded to a whole new PC last month (2.8 GHz, 80 GB, WinXP-HE
    > [SP2]).
    > The local computer store that sold me and set up the system,
    > installed "BitDefender 8 Standard" (30 day free trial) for
    > introductory anti-virus protection.
    > For a permanent anti-virus ("a-v") platform, the store is pushing
    > Norton 2005 ("N2K5") [when I got my original PC from them in 1997,
    > the suggestion--which I took--was McAfee, which I've found to be
    > bloated and somewhat buggy--though part of it may have been
    > exasperated by my 200 MHz, 2.1 GB dinosaur! P=) ].
    > Googling around, another a-v package that seems decent is Kaspersky
    > (is it pronounced "CASper Sky" or "Kass PERskee"?).
    > I asked about it at the computer store and supposedly they never
    > heard of Kaspersky: Given that it seems to be well known in the
    > computer geek circles (including major computer magazines), I find
    > the store's (supposed) lack of awareness rather suspect (though, in
    > that it is a Russian company and I haven't seen their products in
    > local stores, I suppose it *is* possible).
    > There is an added wrinkle, however.
    > On a couple of programs I've run, I've gotten the "16 bit MS-DOS
    > Subsystem" error box, "C:\PROGRA~1\Symantec\S32EVNT1.DLL. An
    > installable Virtual Device Driver failed Dll initialization. Choose
    > 'Close' to terminate the application."
    > Doing a Google search, I see that it is the result of a
    > faulty/corrupt Symantec (i.e., Norton) register--HUH!!!: AFAIK I
    > *don't have any* Symantec programs/folders/files on my 'puter!
    > But, sure enough, while visiting the registry (regarding a separate
    > issue--see below), there *is* a Symantec registry folder!?!
    > I had been inclined to go along with the store's N2K5 recommendation
    > [though I'd probably get it at Wal-Mart, where it's $10-15 cheaper
    > P=) ], but the more I think about it, the more galling it becomes to
    > think that Symantec somehow had a folder (registry, yet!) preemtively
    > added to the system (once again, the computer store appeared clueless,
    > denying that they added it in during the setup, or even knew about it,
    > and even went so far as to say, "when you install N2K5, that should
    > clear things up"!).
    > The only other possibility I can think of is that it is somehow related
    > to and/or introduced by WinXP's SP2: The reason that I was in the
    > registry was that SP2 locked out WordPad's ability to load
    > "Word For Windows 6.0" ".doc" files, due to an apparent security hole.
    > Could SP2 have added the Symantec folder?
    > Or, is Norton the "unofficial" WinXP a-v program?
    >
    > Or...
    > ...am I just paranoid and there is a perfectly legitimate reason for
    > the
    > Symantec folder (i.e., some other, unrelated Symantec program)?
    >
    > >From what I've read, Kaspersky appears at least as good as N2K5, though

    > there *is* one page of reviews that is less than flattering:
    >
    > http://www.pcmag.com/member_ratings/...a=26455,00.asp
    >
    > Have any newly discovered issues with Kaspersky come up?
    >
    > Would it hurt to try their 30 day trial?--or, if I did decide to choose
    > N2K5 or something else (or even decide on Kaspersky), would all of the
    > leftover debris from the two trial versions (even after "uninstalling")
    > likely create any potential conflicts/issues?
    >
    > ~Kaimbridge~
    >
    > -----
    > Wanted-Kaimbridge (w/mugshot!):
    > http://www.angelfire.com/ma2/digitol...nted_KMGC.html
    > ----------
    > Digitology-The Grand Theory Of The Universe:
    > http://www.angelfire.com/ma2/digitology/index.html
    >
    > ***** Void Where Permitted; Limit 0 Per Customer. *****
    >




  3. Re: Kaspersky Vs. Norton/Symantec


    "Ron Reaugh" wrote in message
    news:v8Gse.977028$w62.127325@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
    > Use AVG from www.grisoft.com it's free. Don't even think about
    > Symantec.


    I agree totally. Norton is crap. Expensive crap.



  4. Re: Kaspersky Vs. Norton/Symantec


    "John of Aix" wrote in message
    news:42b339c5$0$25051$8fcfb975@news.wanadoo.fr...
    >
    > "Ron Reaugh" wrote in message
    > news:v8Gse.977028$w62.127325@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
    > > Use AVG from www.grisoft.com it's free. Don't even think about
    > > Symantec.

    >
    > I agree totally. Norton is crap. Expensive crap.


    An often a performance degrading infection worse than that which it's
    supposed to prevent. Why don't they put it in some malware definition
    files?



  5. Re: Kaspersky Vs. Norton/Symantec

    In news:1119036031.004379.145030@f14g2000cwb.googlegr oups.com,
    Kaimbridge@gmail.com typed:
    > I upgraded to a whole new PC last month (2.8 GHz, 80 GB, WinXP-HE
    > [SP2]).
    > The local computer store that sold me and set up the system,
    > installed "BitDefender 8 Standard" (30 day free trial) for
    > introductory anti-virus protection.
    > For a permanent anti-virus ("a-v") platform, the store is pushing
    > Norton 2005 ("N2K5") <>


    As far a virus programs go there is a large difference between Norton and
    say Symantec Corporate A.V.s

    The corporate version Symantec Antivirus is as different as night and day
    from Norton. They are both bloated in size as most all software seems to be
    at present. Symantec is designed without the frills of Norton and is
    business like in it's AV properties and does a very good job in my opinion.

    ....Allen



  6. Re: Kaspersky Vs. Norton/Symantec

    A trial period is always a good option, whether of Kaspersky or...?
    Although I've used Norton for many years, may I suggest for an
    anti-virus that you also consider NOD23.
    It is highly rated and within the same price of others - excepting the
    freebies, of course. Good hunting.

    Bud

  7. Re: Kaspersky Vs. Norton/Symantec

    I use AVG 7.0 on my machine, and install it for customers a lot. I reckon
    its a bloody good program, with far less bloat than Norton or Mcaffee. It
    looks after itself, if its configured properly, I've found my customers
    really enjoy not having to touch it, or very rarely, in which case i
    normally get a phone call, and i can sort it for them over the phone. And
    its free, so if your looking to save some bucks its right there.

    --
    Tony Meyer
    CompUTec Computer & Network Services
    Pukekohe New Zealand

    "Bud" wrote in message
    news:6bCdnf04D7ki4S7fRVn-sA@comcast.com...
    >A trial period is always a good option, whether of Kaspersky or...?
    > Although I've used Norton for many years, may I suggest for an anti-virus
    > that you also consider NOD23.
    > It is highly rated and within the same price of others - excepting the
    > freebies, of course. Good hunting.
    >
    > Bud




  8. Re: Kaspersky Vs. Norton/Symantec


    "Tony Meyer" wrote in message
    news:d8vv2u$mff$1@lust.ihug.co.nz...
    > I use AVG 7.0 on my machine, and install it for customers a lot. I reckon
    > its a bloody good program, with far less bloat than Norton or Mcaffee. It
    > looks after itself, if its configured properly, I've found my customers
    > really enjoy not having to touch it, or very rarely, in which case i
    > normally get a phone call, and i can sort it for them over the phone. And
    > its free, so if your looking to save some bucks its right there.


    My conclusion also.



  9. Re: Kaspersky Vs. Norton/Symantec


    "Ron Reaugh" wrote in message
    news:hfLse.978437$w62.849069@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
    >
    > "Tony Meyer" wrote in message
    > news:d8vv2u$mff$1@lust.ihug.co.nz...
    > > I use AVG 7.0 on my machine, and install it for customers a lot. I

    reckon
    > > its a bloody good program, with far less bloat than Norton or Mcaffee.

    It
    > > looks after itself, if its configured properly, I've found my customers
    > > really enjoy not having to touch it, or very rarely, in which case i
    > > normally get a phone call, and i can sort it for them over the phone.

    And
    > > its free, so if your looking to save some bucks its right there.

    >
    > My conclusion also.


    Anything regarding subscriptions means an act of support that a user must
    undertake. The dollars aren't relevant. At the end of a year the user soon
    gets infected and requires help. It's not the users' fault. It's the
    industry's fault.

    BILLY PLEASE SAVE US AGAIN.

    Turn Automatic Updates ON!



  10. Re: Kaspersky Vs. Norton/Symantec

    Kaimbridge,

    I've used Kaspersky for the past year and felt it has worked significantly
    well. If you ever need technical support, you can always contact them
    through email, or call them toll free and be directly connected to their
    customer service (in Moscow) via an 800 number. And yes, they do speak
    English. It presently has 126,000 known virus's in it's database to protect
    you from and updates regularly. It's not too expensive $35ish online, or if
    you're into obtaining it free, there's always Limewire.com or other file
    sharing programs.



    "Bud" wrote in message
    news:6bCdnf04D7ki4S7fRVn-sA@comcast.com...
    >A trial period is always a good option, whether of Kaspersky or...?
    > Although I've used Norton for many years, may I suggest for an anti-virus
    > that you also consider NOD23.
    > It is highly rated and within the same price of others - excepting the
    > freebies, of course. Good hunting.
    >
    > Bud




  11. Re: Kaspersky Vs. Norton/Symantec

    If you need a good utility program take a look on ebay for System Mechanic
    Pro 5. It contains a number of utilities plus one year of Kaspersky and a
    firewall for I think $25.00 At least that's what I paid in February. It is a
    cheap way of getting a multi featured utility and Kasperspy.

    wrote in message
    news:1119036031.004379.145030@f14g2000cwb.googlegr oups.com...
    >I upgraded to a whole new PC last month (2.8 GHz, 80 GB, WinXP-HE
    > [SP2]).
    > The local computer store that sold me and set up the system,
    > installed "BitDefender 8 Standard" (30 day free trial) for
    > introductory anti-virus protection.
    > For a permanent anti-virus ("a-v") platform, the store is pushing
    > Norton 2005 ("N2K5") [when I got my original PC from them in 1997,
    > the suggestion--which I took--was McAfee, which I've found to be
    > bloated and somewhat buggy--though part of it may have been
    > exasperated by my 200 MHz, 2.1 GB dinosaur! P=) ].
    > Googling around, another a-v package that seems decent is Kaspersky
    > (is it pronounced "CASper Sky" or "Kass PERskee"?).
    > I asked about it at the computer store and supposedly they never
    > heard of Kaspersky: Given that it seems to be well known in the
    > computer geek circles (including major computer magazines), I find
    > the store's (supposed) lack of awareness rather suspect (though, in
    > that it is a Russian company and I haven't seen their products in
    > local stores, I suppose it *is* possible).
    > There is an added wrinkle, however.
    > On a couple of programs I've run, I've gotten the "16 bit MS-DOS
    > Subsystem" error box, "C:\PROGRA~1\Symantec\S32EVNT1.DLL. An
    > installable Virtual Device Driver failed Dll initialization. Choose
    > 'Close' to terminate the application."
    > Doing a Google search, I see that it is the result of a
    > faulty/corrupt Symantec (i.e., Norton) register--HUH!!!: AFAIK I
    > *don't have any* Symantec programs/folders/files on my 'puter!
    > But, sure enough, while visiting the registry (regarding a separate
    > issue--see below), there *is* a Symantec registry folder!?!
    > I had been inclined to go along with the store's N2K5 recommendation
    > [though I'd probably get it at Wal-Mart, where it's $10-15 cheaper
    > P=) ], but the more I think about it, the more galling it becomes to
    > think that Symantec somehow had a folder (registry, yet!) preemtively
    > added to the system (once again, the computer store appeared clueless,
    > denying that they added it in during the setup, or even knew about it,
    > and even went so far as to say, "when you install N2K5, that should
    > clear things up"!).
    > The only other possibility I can think of is that it is somehow related
    > to and/or introduced by WinXP's SP2: The reason that I was in the
    > registry was that SP2 locked out WordPad's ability to load
    > "Word For Windows 6.0" ".doc" files, due to an apparent security hole.
    > Could SP2 have added the Symantec folder?
    > Or, is Norton the "unofficial" WinXP a-v program?
    >
    > Or...
    > ...am I just paranoid and there is a perfectly legitimate reason for
    > the
    > Symantec folder (i.e., some other, unrelated Symantec program)?
    >
    >>From what I've read, Kaspersky appears at least as good as N2K5, though

    > there *is* one page of reviews that is less than flattering:
    >
    > http://www.pcmag.com/member_ratings/...a=26455,00.asp
    >
    > Have any newly discovered issues with Kaspersky come up?
    >
    > Would it hurt to try their 30 day trial?--or, if I did decide to choose
    > N2K5 or something else (or even decide on Kaspersky), would all of the
    > leftover debris from the two trial versions (even after "uninstalling")
    > likely create any potential conflicts/issues?
    >
    > ~Kaimbridge~
    >
    > -----
    > Wanted-Kaimbridge (w/mugshot!):
    > http://www.angelfire.com/ma2/digitol...nted_KMGC.html
    > ----------
    > Digitology-The Grand Theory Of The Universe:
    > http://www.angelfire.com/ma2/digitology/index.html
    >
    > ***** Void Where Permitted; Limit 0 Per Customer. *****
    >




  12. Re: Kaspersky Vs. Norton/Symantec


    "John of Aix" wrote in message
    news:42b339c5$0$25051$8fcfb975@news.wanadoo.fr...
    >
    > "Ron Reaugh" wrote in message
    > news:v8Gse.977028$w62.127325@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
    >> Use AVG from www.grisoft.com it's free. Don't even think about Symantec.

    >
    > I agree totally. Norton is crap. Expensive crap.


    The very definition of 'bloatware'..... It cripples all but the most
    generously specced computers, an XP system with 256mb or less will be
    reduced to a crawl.

    Gaz



  13. Re: Kaspersky Vs. Norton/Symantec

    NOD32


  14. Re: Kaspersky Vs. Norton/Symantec

    I can be short on this one:

    KAV uses less memory then Norton...and the updates are FAR more faster
    and more frequent then Norton.
    Besides all this KAV also detects MORE viruses and other crap then
    Norton does.

    If you REALY want protection use KAV instead of Norton.

    need I say more?

    JJ

    Kaimbridge@gmail.com wrote:
    > I upgraded to a whole new PC last month (2.8 GHz, 80 GB, WinXP-HE
    > [SP2]).
    > The local computer store that sold me and set up the system,
    > installed "BitDefender 8 Standard" (30 day free trial) for
    > introductory anti-virus protection.
    > For a permanent anti-virus ("a-v") platform, the store is pushing
    > Norton 2005 ("N2K5") [when I got my original PC from them in 1997,
    > the suggestion--which I took--was McAfee, which I've found to be
    > bloated and somewhat buggy--though part of it may have been
    > exasperated by my 200 MHz, 2.1 GB dinosaur! P=) ].
    > Googling around, another a-v package that seems decent is Kaspersky
    > (is it pronounced "CASper Sky" or "Kass PERskee"?).
    > I asked about it at the computer store and supposedly they never
    > heard of Kaspersky: Given that it seems to be well known in the
    > computer geek circles (including major computer magazines), I find
    > the store's (supposed) lack of awareness rather suspect (though, in
    > that it is a Russian company and I haven't seen their products in
    > local stores, I suppose it *is* possible).
    > There is an added wrinkle, however.
    > On a couple of programs I've run, I've gotten the "16 bit MS-DOS
    > Subsystem" error box, "C:\PROGRA~1\Symantec\S32EVNT1.DLL. An
    > installable Virtual Device Driver failed Dll initialization. Choose
    > 'Close' to terminate the application."
    > Doing a Google search, I see that it is the result of a
    > faulty/corrupt Symantec (i.e., Norton) register--HUH!!!: AFAIK I
    > *don't have any* Symantec programs/folders/files on my 'puter!
    > But, sure enough, while visiting the registry (regarding a separate
    > issue--see below), there *is* a Symantec registry folder!?!
    > I had been inclined to go along with the store's N2K5 recommendation
    > [though I'd probably get it at Wal-Mart, where it's $10-15 cheaper
    > P=) ], but the more I think about it, the more galling it becomes to
    > think that Symantec somehow had a folder (registry, yet!) preemtively
    > added to the system (once again, the computer store appeared clueless,
    > denying that they added it in during the setup, or even knew about it,
    > and even went so far as to say, "when you install N2K5, that should
    > clear things up"!).
    > The only other possibility I can think of is that it is somehow related
    > to and/or introduced by WinXP's SP2: The reason that I was in the
    > registry was that SP2 locked out WordPad's ability to load
    > "Word For Windows 6.0" ".doc" files, due to an apparent security hole.
    > Could SP2 have added the Symantec folder?
    > Or, is Norton the "unofficial" WinXP a-v program?
    >
    > Or...
    > ...am I just paranoid and there is a perfectly legitimate reason for
    > the
    > Symantec folder (i.e., some other, unrelated Symantec program)?
    >
    >>From what I've read, Kaspersky appears at least as good as N2K5, though

    > there *is* one page of reviews that is less than flattering:
    >
    > http://www.pcmag.com/member_ratings/...a=26455,00.asp
    >
    > Have any newly discovered issues with Kaspersky come up?
    >
    > Would it hurt to try their 30 day trial?--or, if I did decide to choose
    > N2K5 or something else (or even decide on Kaspersky), would all of the
    > leftover debris from the two trial versions (even after "uninstalling")
    > likely create any potential conflicts/issues?
    >
    > ~Kaimbridge~
    >
    > -----
    > Wanted-Kaimbridge (w/mugshot!):
    > http://www.angelfire.com/ma2/digitol...nted_KMGC.html
    > ----------
    > Digitology-The Grand Theory Of The Universe:
    > http://www.angelfire.com/ma2/digitology/index.html
    >
    > ***** Void Where Permitted; Limit 0 Per Customer. *****
    >


  15. Re: Kaspersky Vs. Norton/Symantec

    NOD32 is also a very good AV program but still is behind KAV regarding
    detecting worms and spyware.(IMHO)

    my personal list:

    1) KAV
    2) Bitdefender
    3)Nod32
    4) F-Secure
    5)Norman
    with a good runner up Avast! 4.6 pro version......

    I wonder....no realy good American AV software left????

    JJ

    msean1941@gmail.com wrote:
    > NOD32
    >


  16. Re: Kaspersky Vs. Norton/Symantec

    OOOOOOOOOOOOOO Pleaseeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee



    JJ

    Ron Reaugh wrote:
    > Use AVG from www.grisoft.com it's free. Don't even think about Symantec.
    >
    > wrote in message
    > news:1119036031.004379.145030@f14g2000cwb.googlegr oups.com...
    >
    >>I upgraded to a whole new PC last month (2.8 GHz, 80 GB, WinXP-HE
    >>[SP2]).
    >>The local computer store that sold me and set up the system,
    >>installed "BitDefender 8 Standard" (30 day free trial) for
    >>introductory anti-virus protection.
    >>For a permanent anti-virus ("a-v") platform, the store is pushing
    >>Norton 2005 ("N2K5") [when I got my original PC from them in 1997,
    >>the suggestion--which I took--was McAfee, which I've found to be
    >>bloated and somewhat buggy--though part of it may have been
    >>exasperated by my 200 MHz, 2.1 GB dinosaur! P=) ].
    >>Googling around, another a-v package that seems decent is Kaspersky
    >>(is it pronounced "CASper Sky" or "Kass PERskee"?).
    >>I asked about it at the computer store and supposedly they never
    >>heard of Kaspersky: Given that it seems to be well known in the
    >>computer geek circles (including major computer magazines), I find
    >>the store's (supposed) lack of awareness rather suspect (though, in
    >>that it is a Russian company and I haven't seen their products in
    >>local stores, I suppose it *is* possible).
    >>There is an added wrinkle, however.
    >>On a couple of programs I've run, I've gotten the "16 bit MS-DOS
    >>Subsystem" error box, "C:\PROGRA~1\Symantec\S32EVNT1.DLL. An
    >>installable Virtual Device Driver failed Dll initialization. Choose
    >>'Close' to terminate the application."
    >>Doing a Google search, I see that it is the result of a
    >>faulty/corrupt Symantec (i.e., Norton) register--HUH!!!: AFAIK I
    >>*don't have any* Symantec programs/folders/files on my 'puter!
    >>But, sure enough, while visiting the registry (regarding a separate
    >>issue--see below), there *is* a Symantec registry folder!?!
    >>I had been inclined to go along with the store's N2K5 recommendation
    >>[though I'd probably get it at Wal-Mart, where it's $10-15 cheaper
    >>P=) ], but the more I think about it, the more galling it becomes to
    >>think that Symantec somehow had a folder (registry, yet!) preemtively
    >>added to the system (once again, the computer store appeared clueless,
    >>denying that they added it in during the setup, or even knew about it,
    >>and even went so far as to say, "when you install N2K5, that should
    >>clear things up"!).
    >>The only other possibility I can think of is that it is somehow related
    >>to and/or introduced by WinXP's SP2: The reason that I was in the
    >>registry was that SP2 locked out WordPad's ability to load
    >>"Word For Windows 6.0" ".doc" files, due to an apparent security hole.
    >>Could SP2 have added the Symantec folder?
    >>Or, is Norton the "unofficial" WinXP a-v program?
    >>
    >>Or...
    >>...am I just paranoid and there is a perfectly legitimate reason for
    >>the
    >>Symantec folder (i.e., some other, unrelated Symantec program)?
    >>
    >>>From what I've read, Kaspersky appears at least as good as N2K5, though

    >>there *is* one page of reviews that is less than flattering:
    >>
    >>http://www.pcmag.com/member_ratings/...a=26455,00.asp
    >>
    >>Have any newly discovered issues with Kaspersky come up?
    >>
    >>Would it hurt to try their 30 day trial?--or, if I did decide to choose
    >>N2K5 or something else (or even decide on Kaspersky), would all of the
    >>leftover debris from the two trial versions (even after "uninstalling")
    >>likely create any potential conflicts/issues?
    >>
    >> ~Kaimbridge~
    >>
    >>-----
    >> Wanted-Kaimbridge (w/mugshot!):
    >> http://www.angelfire.com/ma2/digitol...nted_KMGC.html
    >> ----------
    >>Digitology-The Grand Theory Of The Universe:
    >> http://www.angelfire.com/ma2/digitology/index.html
    >>
    >> ***** Void Where Permitted; Limit 0 Per Customer. *****
    >>

    >
    >
    >


  17. Re: Kaspersky Vs. Norton/Symantec

    On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 13:42:18 +0200, JJ
    wrote:

    >NOD32 is also a very good AV program but still is behind KAV regarding
    >detecting worms and spyware.(IMHO)
    >
    >my personal list:
    >
    >1) KAV
    >2) Bitdefender
    >3)Nod32
    >4) F-Secure
    >5)Norman
    >with a good runner up Avast! 4.6 pro version......
    >
    >I wonder....no realy good American AV software left????


    Insofar as detection capabilities go, McAfee is right up there close
    to KAV. Also, your list should include the several products that use
    the KAV scan engine such as AVK, F-Secure and Microworld's EScan.
    AVK is probably at the top of the list, along with Sybari ... another
    multi-engine product.

    Art

    http://home.epix.net/~artnpeg

  18. Re: Kaspersky Vs. Norton/Symantec

    yes you are correct...Gdata (AVK) is such a multi engine produkt (both
    KAV and Bitdefender),also F-secure uses Kav and their own engine.
    Both fine European products (Germany and Finland)

    However.....if you run 2 engines it takes also much RAM....that's the
    backside of multi engine AV software:-(

    macafee is maybe good in detecting viruses...but as i said on the trojan
    front it lakes....also it uses much RAM and the updates are somewhat
    diffcicult. (you have to sign in first with your email adress)
    But as a whole i certainly would prefer it over Norton (or AVG) which is
    IMHO total CRAP.

    I never heard of Escan...


    JJ

    Art wrote:
    > On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 13:42:18 +0200, JJ
    > wrote:
    >
    >
    >>NOD32 is also a very good AV program but still is behind KAV regarding
    >>detecting worms and spyware.(IMHO)
    >>
    >>my personal list:
    >>
    >>1) KAV
    >>2) Bitdefender
    >>3)Nod32
    >>4) F-Secure
    >>5)Norman
    >>with a good runner up Avast! 4.6 pro version......
    >>
    >>I wonder....no realy good American AV software left????

    >
    >
    > Insofar as detection capabilities go, McAfee is right up there close
    > to KAV. Also, your list should include the several products that use
    > the KAV scan engine such as AVK, F-Secure and Microworld's EScan.
    > AVK is probably at the top of the list, along with Sybari ... another
    > multi-engine product.
    >
    > Art
    >
    > http://home.epix.net/~artnpeg


  19. Re: Kaspersky Vs. Norton/Symantec


    "Allen L." wrote in message
    news:4TIse.43223$j51.12108@tornado.texas.rr.com...
    > In news:1119036031.004379.145030@f14g2000cwb.googlegr oups.com,
    > Kaimbridge@gmail.com typed:

    <>
    >
    > As far a virus programs go there is a large difference between Norton

    and
    > say Symantec Corporate A.V.s
    >
    > The corporate version Symantec Antivirus is as different as night and

    day
    > from Norton. They are both bloated in size as most all software seems

    to be
    > at present. Symantec is designed without the frills of Norton and is
    > business like in it's AV properties and does a very good job in my

    opinion.
    >

    Yes agreed, but Symantec Enterprise Edition is designed for use in an
    organizational setting and costs much more than the consumer products
    that I think the OP is inquiring about.

    Chas.



  20. Re: Kaspersky Vs. Norton/Symantec


    "JJ" wrote in message
    news:d91116$1pk$2@news6.zwoll1.ov.home.nl...
    > I can be short on this one:
    >
    > KAV uses less memory then Norton...and the updates are FAR more faster
    > and more frequent then Norton.
    > Besides all this KAV also detects MORE viruses and other crap then
    > Norton does.
    >
    > If you REALY want protection use KAV instead of Norton.
    >
    > need I say more?



    YES, does it cost money? Do you have to renew it?



+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast