|
Gotta admire the irony at least.
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
Perhaps the same reason that most people still have their children inoculated for smallpox even though the chance of any individual child getting it is miniscule.
Virus protection is one component of computer security; equally important is malware detection, and the firewall.
It's not just "black/grey" downloads that convey nasty software: it's all the free downloads of stuff from CNet and other major freeware suppliers ... of often useful small tool, or programs ... that makes it so easy to accidentally install tracking browser-toolbars, and all kinds of other crap.
Not all anti-virus software is obtrusive; in my experience, the EmsiSoft software I use is very light on the palette. And, I think Ad-Blocker-Plus does a great job in Chrome.
«A man will be imprisoned in a room with a door that's unlocked and opens inwards ... as long as it does not occur to him to pull rather than push» Wittgenstein
|
|
|
|
|
BillWoodruff wrote: Virus protection is one component of computer security; equally important is malware detection, and the firewall.
But Windows Defender does that and it's already included with Windows. So, it's not like there's nothing on the system.
BillWoodruff wrote: It's not just "black/grey" downloads that convey nasty software: it's all the free downloads of stuff from CNet and other major freeware suppliers ... of often useful small tool, or programs ... that makes it so easy to accidentally install tracking browser-toolbars, and all kinds of other crap.
Totally agree with this, but you can generally disallow them. Or if you really must install crappy CNET software that didn't give you that option, you can disable BHOs in IE, extensions in Chrome, etc. Not that the average user would know how to do that, so I see the market for obtrusive "let me wipe your arse" software.
But for a professional... we should know better.
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
Once upon a time, The Big Two virus scanners weren't bloat-ware, didn't act like like nanny-state guardians eating all your system resources. They were sleek, and quick, and wonderful were Norton Antivirus and McAfee. And if you didn't install one or the other you would soon regret it: .DOC files, spreadsheets, .EXEs, .COM files all tried to infect you. And that was before the rise of the Internet and email, ActiveX, and downloads became dangerous to know.
Now, they are hideous, resource swallowing monsters that do more damage when you try to remove them than all the viruses they protect from.
I don't use Defender (I consider Win8 a virus in it's own right  ) but I do use Security Essentials - and it warns me about something a couple of times a year. Chrome warns me away from maybe one site every few months, for a day or two. And no, that doesn't come from "crappy CNET software" or pr0n sites...
Would I run with no antivirus? No firewall? No chance! I've had to clean up the mess that results if you do ... but would I run Symantec or McAfee today? No way José!
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
|
|
|
|
|
OriginalGriff wrote: Once upon a time
I remember those days. Even still I'd use McAfee over Norton because McAfee was less obtrusive. Sadly, those days are gone.
OriginalGriff wrote: Now, they are hideous, resource swallowing monsters that do more damage when you try to remove them than all the viruses they protect from.
Preach the gospel my friend!OriginalGriff wrote: Would I run with no antivirus? No firewall? No chance! I've had to clean up the mess that results if you do ... but would I run Symantec or McAfee today? No way José!
I'm not a MS fanboy at all, but I do feel that Windows Defender and Windows Firewall provide enough security for me. I haven't gotten a virus yet using it, so I can't complain.
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
Jeremy Falcon wrote: I haven't gotten a virus yet using it
...That you're aware of. <evil grin>
The difficult we do right away...
...the impossible takes slightly longer.
|
|
|
|
|
OriginalGriff wrote: Now, they are hideous, resource swallowing monsters that do more damage when you try to remove them than all the viruses they protect from.
The fate of most for-purchase software, unfortunately. If your job is to sell the latest version of your product, then your latest version better have some value that exceeds the previous version. In our industry that usually equates to "more features".
|
|
|
|
|
OriginalGriff wrote: I don't use Defender (I consider Win8 a virus in it's own right ) but I do use Security Essentials
I'm assuming that if you use Security Essentials, you're on 7.
Honest question: What makes Win8 "a virus in it's (sic) own right") that isn't already part of Win7?
|
|
|
|
|
The way it takes all the good bits, and either throws them away, or make them harder to use?
Don't get me wrong, it's probably a good OS for a tablet, but for desktop it's a PITA...
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
|
|
|
|
|
In all fairness, 8.1 is a lot better about it. I'm used to it and like it now. And I don't run many metro apps at all.
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
Not sure if you were actually talking about Windows 8.0 or 8.1. As Jeremy wrote, 8.1 is a lot better, and I also don't use any Metro app.
OriginalGriff wrote: Don't get me wrong, it's probably a good OS for a tablet, but for desktop it's a PITA...
How's this then for a compromise: I use it on an actual tablet, but use it as if it were a desktop.
The only system on my desk is a first-gen Surface Pro (came with 8.0, updated to 8.1). It's hooked up to my mouse/keyboard/3 monitors with a USB dock; using that setup, I practically live in RDP (I remote into VMs running on another system in the house).
With enough desktop and taskbar shortcuts, I honestly see the start screen maybe 3 times a day. At this point I don't see it as being much different than any previous incarnation.
Point is: Not only is it flexible enough that you can completely ignore the tablet-specific features, but I'm ignoring those tablet-specific features on an actual tablet. Mind = blown.
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the way things are going in the States with their 10 million new illegal aliens bringing back Tuberculosis, Polio, Mumps, Measles, etc...better safe than sorry.
|
|
|
|
|
You left out ISIS infiltrators with Ebola.
«A man will be imprisoned in a room with a door that's unlocked and opens inwards ... as long as it does not occur to him to pull rather than push» Wittgenstein
|
|
|
|
|
True, I hear there's Ebola in Mosul now...only a matter of time...
|
|
|
|
|
And what about the alien DNA inserted into GMO vegetables ?
«A man will be imprisoned in a room with a door that's unlocked and opens inwards ... as long as it does not occur to him to pull rather than push» Wittgenstein
|
|
|
|
|
It's been thought of...never saw Threshold? 
|
|
|
|
|
Jeremy Falcon wrote: Anyone else wonder
Nope.
|
|
|
|
|
To the point. Nice.
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
Well,
I mean, if your point was to confess that you had been socked in the face by a ransomeware virus and was trying to be self-deprecatingly meek so that some equally sorry sot would console you by offering a shoulder on which to cry, uhm ...
Sorry, too macho for that thought. You deserve what you get, my friend.
|
|
|
|
|
RedDk wrote: You deserve what you get, my friend.
Except I don't get viruses. So, um, thanks.
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
I've been the same way for years. Nice to hear I'm not alone.
|
|
|
|
|
Jeremy Falcon wrote: I don't see why a professional would need crap like that on their system
Agreed. 
/ravi
|
|
|
|
|
Maybe because of my Age I'm maybe to conservative. I still use Sophos on all of my machines....ok, maybe because it is sponsored by my Company 
Bruno
modified 19-Jan-21 21:04pm.
|
|
|
|
|
I agree with you in general, but i think its better to keep a little safer those blunderers, which, though professional, are not professional/careful enough (in 2014, i still saw attached executables reaping their victims...  )
|
|
|
|
|
Preferably ones with more money than brain cells?
There is a UK TV advert for a magazine giving you all the parts you need to build a 1:1 scale replica of the original movie prop Millennium Falcon : http://www.buildmillenniumfalcon.com/[^]
Nice one, yes? Only two drawbacks: each piece comes with a weekly (or monthly, I neither know nor care) magazine, and it's complete in 100 parts.
Did I mention that each issue is £8.99? So that model will cost you the thick end of £900, or nearly $1400. 
Are there really people out there stupid enough to do that? 
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
