Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [NTO] AVG Free woes

Expand Messages
  • Axel Berger
    ... Yes, and a bit of sense helps too. (Sorry, tried to resist but failed.) Axel
    Message 1 of 20 , Nov 16, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      WV-Mike wrote:
      > IMHO - Common since and safe computing is the best Anti Virus.

      Yes, and a bit of sense helps too.
      (Sorry, tried to resist but failed.)

      Axel
    • David Smart
      ... I run AVG Free. It is not burdensome and it is not cumbersome. Actually, it isn t even intrusive - even when it finds a virus. It just goes about its
      Message 2 of 20 , Nov 16, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        > I detest AV software as I find it burdensome, cumbersome and intrusive.

        I run AVG Free. It is not burdensome and it is not cumbersome. Actually,
        it isn't even intrusive - even when it finds a virus. It just goes about
        its work quietly, efficiently, and very cheaply.

        I do not ever do a full virus scan of my computers, unless I have reason to
        suspect that something has slipped past (and I'm always wrong). The
        real-time scanning keeps things out.

        I agree that common sense is the best Anti Virus. Common sense says "be
        protected". Safe computing is certainly a help, but not actually a
        protection.

        I drive carefully, attentively and (I think) reasonably skilfully. But I
        still have car insurance.

        Regards, Dave S

        ----- Original Message -----
        From: "WV-Mike" <notetab@...>
        To: <ntb-OffTopic@yahoogroups.com>
        Sent: Friday, November 16, 2007 10:24 PM
        Subject: Re: [NTO] AVG Free woes


        > At 04:52 AM 11/16/2007 , David Smart wrote:
        >>AVG Free has always checked daily for updates, by default. Frankly I can't
        >>think why you wouldn't want to do so.
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > I detest AV software as I find it burdensome, cumbersome and intrusive.
        >
        > To my knowledge I have not had a PC virus since my first one - nearly 20
        > years ago.
        >
        > IMHO - Common since and safe computing is the best Anti Virus.
        >
        > -Mike
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > _________________________________
        > Check it out:
        > www.EpicRoadTrips.us
        > ~~~
        > To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we
        > are to stand by the President , right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic
        > and
        > servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.
        > -Theodore Roosevelt ( 1859-1919) 2rth President of the United States and
        > Winner of the 1906 Noble Peace Prize.
        > ~~~
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > Yahoo! Groups Links
        >
        >
        >
      • gkluther
        Mike, I too do safe computing (what ever that means) but I still bet Viri (plural of virus?). I think your stand is a little outmoded and foolish. Hey, nothing
        Message 3 of 20 , Nov 16, 2007
        • 0 Attachment
          Mike, I too do safe computing (what ever that means) but I still bet Viri
          (plural of virus?). I think your stand is a little outmoded and foolish.

          Hey, nothing personal. Just my oppinion.
          --
          "Good Health means you are dying at the slowest possible rate!!"

          The trouble about trying to make yourself stupider than you really are is
          that you very often succeed. - CS Lewis

          "Where lipstick is concerned, the important thing is not color, but to
          accept God's final word on where your lips end." - Jerry Seinfeld


          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • Axel Berger
          ... That may well be. But amongst all the people I know and talk to my computers are the only ones that have never ever caught a single infection of any kind.
          Message 4 of 20 , Nov 17, 2007
          • 0 Attachment
            gkluther wrote:
            > I think your stand is a little outmoded and foolish.

            That may well be. But amongst all the people I know and talk to my
            computers are the only ones that have never ever caught a single
            infection of any kind. For the time being that's good enough for me.
            And I don't rely on my hubris alone. Every once in a while I start up
            Kaspersky (I have a current three machine licence) and let it loose
            across all my partitions overnight. The result is always the same and
            quite reassuring - especially since being independant from it my method
            presumably also protects me from those things the AV software does not
            detect.

            If yours catches anything at all, you may assume that for every four or
            so caught it will let one pass - at least that's what all stringent
            tests of such software result in even for the best.

            Axel
          • David Smart
            ... Your source for this statistic is? Actually, AV software will stop everything it knows about and nothing it doesn t know about yet. The response times for
            Message 5 of 20 , Nov 17, 2007
            • 0 Attachment
              > ... you may assume that for every four or
              > so caught it will let one pass - at least that's what all stringent
              > tests of such software result in even for the best.

              Your source for this statistic is?

              Actually, AV software will stop everything it knows about and nothing it
              doesn't know about yet. The response times for new AV signatures is quick,
              and my own computers have never been subjected to a virus that was found
              "after the event". So, either I am getting viruses that are too trivial to
              justify protection, or the response times of the AV companies beats the
              propagation times of viruses to the sort of Internet contact my computer
              has.

              > But amongst all the people I know and talk to my
              > computers are the only ones that have never ever caught a single
              > infection of any kind.

              I can't equate this with your apparent suggestion to others that they
              shouldn't bother with AV software. Surely your experience indicates that
              others should very definitely be running AV software, as they clearly don't
              follow the other stringencies that keep your computer clean.

              Regards, Dave S

              ----- Original Message -----
              From: "Axel Berger" <Axel-Berger@...>
              To: <ntb-OffTopic@yahoogroups.com>
              Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2007 8:15 PM
              Subject: Re: [NTO] Re: AVG Free woes


              > gkluther wrote:
              >> I think your stand is a little outmoded and foolish.
              >
              > That may well be. But amongst all the people I know and talk to my
              > computers are the only ones that have never ever caught a single
              > infection of any kind. For the time being that's good enough for me.
              > And I don't rely on my hubris alone. Every once in a while I start up
              > Kaspersky (I have a current three machine licence) and let it loose
              > across all my partitions overnight. The result is always the same and
              > quite reassuring - especially since being independant from it my method
              > presumably also protects me from those things the AV software does not
              > detect.
              >
              > If yours catches anything at all, you may assume that for every four or
              > so caught it will let one pass - at least that's what all stringent
              > tests of such software result in even for the best.
              >
              > Axel
              >
              >
              >
              > Yahoo! Groups Links
              >
              >
              >
            • WV-Mike
              ... Not a problem. I have heard that a lot over the years. But, I must doing something right - no viruses in 20
              Message 6 of 20 , Nov 17, 2007
              • 0 Attachment
                At 11:09 PM 11/16/2007 , gkluther wrote:
                >Mike, I too do safe computing (what ever that means) but I still bet Viri
                >(plural of virus?). I think your stand is a little outmoded and foolish.
                >
                >Hey, nothing personal. Just my oppinion.



                Not a problem. I have heard that a lot over the years.
                But, I must doing something right - no
                <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plural_of_virus>viruses in 20 years.

                In fact, I cannot help but wonder why it is such a pervasive problem.
                How are all these people getting all these viruses?

                -Mike





                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • Axel Berger
                ... The respected German magazine c t regularly tests these things. You re right, viruses in the strict sense are usually caught reliably, but not so for
                Message 7 of 20 , Nov 17, 2007
                • 0 Attachment
                  David Smart wrote:
                  > Your source for this statistic is?

                  The respected German magazine c't regularly tests these things. You're
                  right, viruses in the strict sense are usually caught reliably, but not
                  so for trojans, spyware and some other stuff.

                  > I can't equate this with your apparent suggestion to others that
                  > they shouldn't bother with AV software. Surely your experience
                  > indicates that others should very definitely be running AV software,
                  > as they clearly don't follow the other stringencies that keep your
                  > computer clean.

                  Here I agree, with the proviso, that I hold my way to be better and
                  proven to be so. But you're right, most people refuse to access the net
                  the way I do: "Nothing works anymore".

                  Axel
                • Axel Berger
                  ... You and I think as one on this issue. The same goes for phishing. If my bank really sent me any letters in the atrocious grammar those phishers use, I d
                  Message 8 of 20 , Nov 17, 2007
                  • 0 Attachment
                    WV-Mike wrote:
                    > How are all these people getting all these viruses?

                    You and I think as one on this issue. The same goes for phishing. If my
                    bank really sent me any letters in the atrocious grammar those phishers
                    use, I'd have a very serious word with the manager and probably take my
                    custom elsewhere.

                    Axel
                  • David Smart
                    ... And the misspellings. This had me puzzled for a while. I.e. why not run a spell-checker and/or get someone with a better understanding of English
                    Message 9 of 20 , Nov 17, 2007
                    • 0 Attachment
                      > If my bank really sent me any letters in the atrocious grammar
                      > those phishers use ...

                      And the misspellings.

                      This had me puzzled for a while. I.e. why not run a spell-checker and/or
                      get someone with a better understanding of English involved.

                      It was suggested to me that it is deliberate, to make the job harder for the
                      anti-spam software. I don't know if that's true or not, but I do know that
                      my copy of PopFile is running at 98.64% accuracy on the 10,000 messages that
                      have come in to my desktop computer since I last reset its statistics at the
                      beginning of September - so the ruse clearly doesn't work very well.

                      (Annoyingly, my spam content is running at over 47% of e-mails currently -
                      due to an absolute flood of spam messages to the unmoderated, and unowned,
                      C++ Yahoo group.)

                      Regards, Dave S

                      ----- Original Message -----
                      From: "Axel Berger" <Axel-Berger@...>
                      To: <ntb-OffTopic@yahoogroups.com>
                      Sent: Sunday, November 18, 2007 12:07 AM
                      Subject: Re: [NTO] Re: AVG Free woes


                      > WV-Mike wrote:
                      >> How are all these people getting all these viruses?
                      >
                      > You and I think as one on this issue. The same goes for phishing. If my
                      > bank really sent me any letters in the atrocious grammar those phishers
                      > use, I'd have a very serious word with the manager and probably take my
                      > custom elsewhere.
                      >
                      > Axel
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > Yahoo! Groups Links
                      >
                      >
                      >
                    • loro
                      Thank you, Stan, Dave and others. ... I must have been more tired than I thought, but that s where I looked and I didn t see the check boxes. I had been
                      Message 10 of 20 , Nov 18, 2007
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Thank you, Stan, Dave and others.

                        >The signature .... again from the control center highlight 'E-mail scanner' &
                        >click on the properties button. In the window that pops up, click on the
                        >configure button. The next window will have a section called 'E-mail
                        >scanning',
                        >uncheck the 2 boxes labeled 'Certify mail' ..... no more AVG signatures.

                        I must have been more tired than I thought, but that's where I looked
                        and I didn't see the check boxes. I had been installing software all
                        day, so I admit I was a little cross eyed. Before your post came in I
                        uninstalled AVG, so I can't have a look right now. I decided it was
                        time to test the free AVs out there again. ATM I'm trying Avast, but
                        I may very well go back to AVG, so your instructions aren't wasted.

                        Lotta
                      • Gerard Huijing
                        ... FYI The Latin plural of virus is virus . Without a context you cannot see the difference. Our plural, so to speak, for virus is viruses , just as
                        Message 11 of 20 , Nov 19, 2007
                        • 0 Attachment
                          gkluther wrote:
                          >
                          >
                          > Mike, I too do safe computing (what ever that means) but I still bet Viri
                          > (plural of virus?).

                          FYI

                          The Latin plural of 'virus' is 'virus'. Without a context you cannot see
                          the difference.

                          Our plural, so to speak, for 'virus' is 'viruses', just as 'apparatuses'
                          is the plural of 'apparatus'.

                          'Viri' represents forms of a completely different word, while
                          'apparati', which I have come across many times on the internet, means
                          nothing at all.

                          Cheers,
                          Gerard


                          --
                          Gerard (E.G.P.) Huijing
                          2312 ZD Leiden
                          Netherlands
                          inboxgen@...
                        • Axel Berger
                          ... Wiktionary is of a different opinion and so is my old dictionary. The genitive is -i and thus so would be the plural if there were one - but with the Latin
                          Message 12 of 20 , Nov 19, 2007
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Gerard Huijing wrote:
                            > The Latin plural of 'virus' is 'virus'.

                            Wiktionary is of a different opinion and so is my old dictionary. The
                            genitive is -i and thus so would be the plural if there were one - but
                            with the Latin meaning poison mucus or slime there isn't.
                            Thus viruses is correct.

                            Axel
                          • Gerard Huijing
                            ... You are right, Axel, thanks for the correction. I knew that virus was an oddball word in that it is neuter, not masculine as one might think at first sight
                            Message 13 of 20 , Nov 20, 2007
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Axel Berger wrote:

                              >
                              > Wiktionary is of a different opinion and so is my old dictionary. The
                              > genitive is -i and thus so would be the plural if there were one - but
                              > with the Latin meaning poison mucus or slime there isn't.
                              > Thus viruses is correct.
                              >
                              > Axel

                              You are right, Axel, thanks for the correction.
                              I knew that virus was an oddball word in that it is neuter, not
                              masculine as one might think at first sight (this can be proved from
                              existing texts).

                              I wrongly thought that virus was of the fourth, not the second declension.
                              Hence plural virus, hence the analogy with apparatus, where apparati is
                              definitely wrong.

                              Although the plural viri of virus is nowhere to be found, that plural
                              form is at least *theoretically* possible; it is not as impossible as
                              apparati is.

                              But this is slowly becoming alt.lang.lat stuff, and too off topic even
                              for the NTB off topic list. :-)

                              Cheers,
                              Gerard

                              --
                              Gerard (E.G.P.) Huijing
                              2312 ZD Leiden
                              Netherlands
                              inboxgen@...
                            • Ray Shapp
                              Hi Gerad, Maybe too off topic , but entertaining,
                              Message 14 of 20 , Nov 23, 2007
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Hi Gerad,

                                <<But this is slowly becoming alt.lang.lat stuff, and too off topic even for
                                the NTB off topic list. :-) >>

                                Maybe "too off topic", but entertaining, nevertheless.

                                Ciao,

                                Ray Shapp
                              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.