LMAO That made my morning.

 

Kinda looks like Terrell Owens.

 

You all might want to check out this site. They compare the different brands og AV software and do reports.

http://www.av-comparatives.org/

As for what I use, I have used Norton, Kaspersky (okay but slowed my system down, especial browser), F-Secure, and am now using E-Set.

As far as Macs, you might want to read this. http://antivirus.about.com/od/macint...cvirusfaqs.htm

They also seem to be being hit by some nasty trojans lately.

 

It's funny because the more people that buy Macs because "they don't have viruses", the higher their chances of that being a moot point. It sucks because it's a valid reason to buy one, although not for long.

 

Well according to AV comparitives website, as I stated, BITDef does better than AVG.

I strongly urge people to move away from AVG and get BitDef or Avira. This is if were talking free. (Also showed the least false posis)

If were talking paid for Kaspersky or Trend-Micro software.

As far as firewalls go. Most free one's are o.k. Especially if you already have a router which comes with a built-in hardware firewall. (Really "software" just rulings.)

I hate symantac and norton they always tend to slow an even fast system to a creep.

But, it also depends on the system config. Where kaspersky never slowed any computer I've put it on down or has trend, someone here said kasp did it to them.

Best to experiment.

What I recommend to clients is whatever they can afford. If they can't afford AV's, I suggest whatever is easiests for them to use.

GLC -- All the software I use, I get for free due to DoD or ED licenses. I get confused at times if they are paid or free. Sorry for the mix up as NOD32 is pretty nice AV.

 

As far as paid for, I would suggest as listed by the Av Comparatives, the ones marked as Advanced +. One of the reasons I like E-set, is that when you pay for the year or 2 year subscription, it is for more than just the updates to that release and for virus definitions. If they come out with a new release, you can install that at no extra charge. Something others may or may not do. As stated, with Kaspersky, I had conflicts and slow downs, otherwise I liked it, but those problems, especially with the problems Kaspersky has when using Firefox. Have been using E-set for over a year and just subscribed for another 2.

 

I have no problems with Kaspersky and Firefox. Is there something I should watch out for?

 

Norm No. It could be a system conflict at the system level layer or a at the software layer such as a peice of software he had that kasp didn't like.

Things like this are a per-person(system) stand.

Sort of how some peopel claim premium gives them 20 extra hp and others with the same vehicle say its a waste of cash.

 

Cool, thanks.

 

I think the biggest problem I had with Kaspersky, was the firewall portion, not the AV part. They had multiple patches for that because it was conflicting with Firefox. This was about 2 years ago.

 

It also depends on system set up.

My dads computer has 1gig RDRAM 3.1 p4.

I have a core 2 duo quad core at 2.4 with 6 gb DDR ram on x64 sys.

We both run pc-cillin internet security. Trend does slow his system down, mainly on start up.

Me though, never a chance it runs slow.

I also have a server with intel celeron 3.0 and 256 rdram. Can't even run an av barely.

I use trend on it but it takes an hour to load everything when I do a restart for updates and so on.

Doesn't matter too much anyway because it's usually always on providing network stuff.

But trend has the ability to scan over a network. So I can scan shares on the network of another computer. Handy for times when you run a server or a computer that isn't able to handle an AV. You can just setup shares on the computer without the AV. share C:\ .

 

Haha thats good!

And Yes mblouir that is correct. My parents had owned macs since before I was born. None have ever had anti-virus software. My laptop and their desktop neither currently have anti-virus or have the firewall turned on. I think I am still safe now as we have never had any of our comps get a virus or crash even. I hope they only start getting dangerous when im getting to old to use one. Macs just are over all more stable just how the Operating System is designed.

 

Are you kidding me? How many servers do you know are running MAC based equipment compared to other OS's? Heck, How many personal computers? Why is it that mac is now compatible with intel based computers? LOLZ!

I can tell you most severs are UNIX/Linux with Apache. Not mac. Actually find me a large server that runs Apache or any server with mac that isnt a personal server.

If mac are so secure why isn't that the OS of choice for servers which are the most secure environments in computing? Please tell me why the DoD, CIA, NSA, DIA, and so on use Linux and UNIX?

I would think they'd want the most secure OS as a server wouldn't you?

Besides the backwards "retardedness" of macs, I'll let you figure it out.

Yes, compared to any of the OS GUI environments available even Linux GNOME OR KDE, MAC is the hardest to understand. Proven. Google it...

It is only more "secure" because it doesn't stand a profit/damage/ect to design a virus for a system that only .001% of people use. How much damage could you possibly cause? The point of making a virus is to cause damage.

Would you design something for 2 people or 100 if you are into to make a profit or some type of gain?

How many programs are GNU/GPL-ed for mac?

How much is the annual cost to own a mac?

In benchmarks which OS comes out on top usually?

I can go on forever with this...

Also mac is based off the unix kernel. So, it's not even an original idea. Dont believe me, google MAC unix certifications.

I hate to get in the mac vs. pc war, but I am so sick of hearing how much more secure a Mac is over a PC.

To the contrary there are viruses, trojans, ect made for macs. But it's rarely heard of because well, who cares about a mac?

Here is the honest truth that any true tech person will tell you.

Despite the OS any computer can be secure. It's on the Admin on how he/she administrates it. Keeping the patches and fixes up to date. Using correct policies and rule sets. Ensuring things are set up the right way such as server software and etc. Makign sure the network and so on is correctly set up.

I will admit the only reason OS's like UNIX an LINUX and even MAC appear to be harder to "hack" or etc is because the lack of understanding of the system.

What would be easier to get in and drive a car or jet? Obviously a car because its more widely used and accepted. Only the far and far between can run the jet-- Unix/Linux.

I got a bet for you.

I bet my PC is more secure than your MAC.

I bet my 66 year old fathers PC is more secure than your MAC..

The reason I got upset was the incorrect information you decided to tell this person by stating a mac is more secure than a pc. What a load of BULL.

Honestly, I'm not even a PC Fanboy, I run Linux(Slackware) on my server and another personal computer (Red Hat).

 

Ok first of all its not MAC. Thats Media Access Control, not an Apple computer. Thats correct that most servers are not running on Mac OS. And so what if the only reason they are less susceptible to virus's is because they are difficult to understand. I didn't design it, so I don't care how it was made. Someone got paid to do that, and all I know is that it works. SO, being that it is more difficult to understand, that would in turn make it more secure. Annual cost to own a Mac, depending on how many problems a comparable windows PC has, its none. I bought my Macbook Pro almost a year ago, and since then I have put no other money into it other than the initial cost. And its also rarely ever heard of them getting virus's because they do not get them. Thats the bottom line. I have done WAY more stuff to my laptop than I would ever think of doing to a PC if owned one. Anything from torrenting, to writing software, to regular system updates.

So lets agree to disagree, you are using an inferior OS and Im not. Simple as that.