Daave
Mon Jun 02 07:09:06 PDT 2008
Twayne wrote:
>> "Twayne" <nobody@devnull.spamcop.net> wrote in message
>> news:O$$ljAAxIHA.5892@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>>>> Twayne wrote:
>>>>>> "Mike Hall - MVP" <mikehall@remove_mvps.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:%23Sp%23NCgwIHA.2208@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>>>>>>> <shempmcgurk@netscape.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:4874d596-038b-4eec-97a8-0e232e6c51b4@l28g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
>>>>>>>> For several years I had the entire Norton secuity system
>>>>>>>> installed
>>>>>>>> on my computer and I removed it because it made everything work
>>>>>>>> slower.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Then I had the free AVG anti-virus program on but was afraid
>>>>>>>> that it was letting certain things in.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So, recently, I put on the entire McAfee plan which was free
>>>>>>>> from my high-speed internet provider. But things seem a little
>>>>>>>> slower with it, but only at times, such as when I have several
>>>>>>>> Internet Explorer windows open and many tabs open on, as well
>>>>>>>> as several programs running.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In your experience, is this slowness due to McAfee? It's not
>>>>>>>> as bad as with Norton...but it is slower than if I didn't have
>>>>>>>> McAfee
>>>>>>>> at all.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Any solutions to this slowness?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> AVG 8.0 is ok, a better bet than either Norton or McAfee..
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I agree. McAfee and Norton are some of the worst products out
>>>>>> there.
>>>>>> Though I also moved over to AVG 8 with no problems...
>>>>>> another good *free* AV program is Avast
>>>>>
>>>>> True, AVG and AVAST are good alternatives, especially for slower
>>>>> computers and since they're free. But Norton and McAfee are far
>>>>> from
>>>>> "some of the worst products out there." Just the opposite, in
>>>>> fact. But you cannot beat Norton of McAfee if you bother to learn
>>>>> what
>>>>> the
>>>>> programs do and how to use them. I'm a little upset right now
>>>>> with AVG because a virus/worm/trojan/whatever did get stopped
>>>>> here on this
>>>>> machine by Norton, but then blew right on by me and did not get
>>>>> stopped at the AVG protected machine just behind me. Up until
>>>>> recently I was of the opinion that AVG at least kept abreast of
>>>>> the latest threats and older ones too, but not so for this one as
>>>>> I just found out a couple hours ago. I heard it beep, but assumed
>>>>> it was just another one of those constant "updates" from AVG, but
>>>>> it wasn't as I found out. It was easy to remove and about two
>>>>> months in the wild per Symantec, so IMO AVG should have caught it!
>>>>> But that doesn't mean I'm throwing AVG out the window as you and
>>>>> some of your fellow MVP parrots like to do with Norton and McAfee
>>>>> for
>>>>> no valid reasons other than the company line. The other machine
>>>>> has AVAST on it and doesn't seem to have been bothered since it
>>>>> was in hibernation at the time. It did wake up for some reason
>>>>> "wake on lan"? but nothing got into it. It's SO many logs to
>>>>> check; gotta automate that one!
>>>>> But you aren't doing anyone any favors when you out of hand
>>>>> summarily
>>>>> dismiss any application for no given reasons and no good reason
>>>>> besides. Closed minds just stagnate so I know what your reponse
>>>>> will be; don't bother, I don't intend to debate with a closed
>>>>> mind.
>>>>
>>>> Closed mind? There's plenty of evidence supporting the proposition
>>>> that Norton and McAfee are bloated applications that significantly
>>>> decrease a PC's performance (just look at the original post of this
>>>> thread!). I will grant that the *corporate* versions of these
>>>> products are worthwhile, however.
>>>
>>> Where? "just look at" is anecdotal and I covered the situation the
>>> OP probably encountered. It's like buying a racing capable car set
>>> up for racing and then complaining it drives terribly in heavy
>>> traffic. Then you have the old cars, not antiques, but missing the
>>> amenities; it's just not going to work as well, but at least it gets
>>> you around and was free. Ignorance isn't bliss in any of these
>>> things. There IS no definitive information that Norton/McAfee do
>>> anthing but what I stated they do. The information I have IS backed
>>> up by studies and definitions. Let's have a look at yours. Then
>>> I'll share more of my experiences AND provide verifiable sources.
>>
>> For starters:
>>
>>
http://www.thepcspy.com/read/what_really_slows_windows_down/5
>
> Meaningless; I've already commented on most of that. From the
> responses I also gleaned that some of the testing was anything but
> proper. Never heard of that rag on top of it.
What about:
"Then I'll share more of my experiences AND provide verifiable sources."
You and I have already discussed this topic, and the last we did, you
agreed with me! Then again, I did grant that certain Norton products
running on systems with enough RAM and configured a certain way will not
bog a system down. But in the real world, there are still many people
running XP on PCs with only 256 MB of RAM. And I believe certain Norton
products (360?) can't be configured to minimize/re-allocate resources.