Welcome to the Lounge

JMK-NI1-Mar-15 4:23

JMK-NI

1-Mar-15 4:23

Please don't do this! You absolutely need anti-virus!

More info here - http://security.stackexchange.com/q/36754/6838[^]

tl:dr If you don't protect your machine it may end up attacking mine

modified 1-Mar-15 10:31am.

Sibeesh Passion1-Mar-15 4:28

1-Mar-15 4:28

That was a great info. Thank you.

==================!!!====================!!!========================
So much complexity in software comes from trying to make one thing do two things.
Kindest Regards
Sibeesh
http://sibeeshpassion.com/

MuckersMate1-Mar-15 23:05

1-Mar-15 23:05

Only one thing anyone could say to this and that's - IDIOT!

Mario Vernari1-Mar-15 23:12

1-Mar-15 23:12

Thanks for your consideration, but I stick to my ideas.

MuckersMate1-Mar-15 23:16

1-Mar-15 23:16

OK - stick to your neanderthal ideas.

If it wasn't for irresponsible users like you there would be far fewer viruses around and the safer it would be be for everyone.

Mario Vernari1-Mar-15 23:29

1-Mar-15 23:29

You should prove your thesis, but -of course- is it up to you do it or not.
The best proof I can say is that I never had any problem. Since Vista, it's rather difficult to run/install something unexpected without explicitly do that (unless you remove the UAC as many users do, and THAT'S WRONG!).
Feel free to do it, if you like...

90823652-Mar-15 1:58

9082365

2-Mar-15 1:58

Quote:
The best proof I can say is that I never had any problem.

That's like the drivers who say they've never had an accident but they've seen quite a few in the wing mirror! Or the parents that complain to teachers when their kids start swearing because "they don't #%!@* get it from me!"

As with any biological virus you could very easily be a carrier without showing any symptoms. UAC does not provide you with any protection, merely with an administrative headache. That's why people disable it. Anti-virus does provide you with protection and, far more importantly, everybody else! You may have been lucky so far but there is absolutely nothing to suggest that you will continue to be so ad infinitum. Is a marginal performance increase really worth risking your entire system on?

Mario Vernari2-Mar-15 2:21

2-Mar-15 2:21

I DO NOT say I'm immune: on that I'm with you at all!...I got flu as any other human...
I DID GOT a "supposed" virus in the past, but I easily removed it by hacking the registry...worthwhile installing an Antivirus: not at all, in my opinion!

When you buy a brand new PC you often find pre-installed a trial version of some famous AV suite.
Anyone was asked to install it? Anyone was asked to reminds me every now and then to purchase a subscription for updates? Ever tried to uninstall? Very hard, or impossible for a non-expert user.

At this point, should I endorse this kind of "usage violence"?...
Sometimes I believe the primary providers of viruses are the Antivirus producers themselves...

Nothing against you guys, but please respect my viewpoints. I won't walk this argument anymore, if that's hurting you so much...

90823652-Mar-15 6:15

9082365

2-Mar-15 6:15

Quote:
I easily removed it by hacking the registry

Try doing that if it's a virus that prevents you booting or ransomware that locks you out. And I guess we'll never know how many others you managed to infect in the time it took you to detect and treat this 'supposed' virus. It is ultimately not possible to respect that which is in no way worthy of respect and your cavalier approach is the very epitome of that!

Mario Vernari2-Mar-15 2:30

2-Mar-15 2:30

Just a question, if you wish to answer...
Do you get medicines every day to prevent a flu twice a year?

90823652-Mar-15 6:06

9082365

2-Mar-15 6:06

No. You 'install' a vaccine which creates antibodies that 'run' all day every day to protect you. Analogy fail!

Mario Vernari2-Mar-15 6:10

2-Mar-15 6:10

You may "install" a vaccine against the flu for yourself: I don't make vaccination unless mandatory!
Seriously: it's decades I don't make a vaccination...
Have a nice day!

MuckersMate4-Mar-15 4:38

4-Mar-15 4:38

I wouldn't want to be in the same room as you - I don't know what I may catch. Visited Liberia recently?

Mario Vernari4-Mar-15 5:29

4-Mar-15 5:29

MuckersMate wrote:
I wouldn't want to be in the same room as you

Smart choice!
In case you'll enter in a room, I'd suggest to share it with some gorgeous girl. I don't believe to be so nice...

MuckersMate wrote:
Visited Liberia recently?

Nope.
However Liberian people got better since they uninstall any antivirus app from their government PCs.

irneb2-Mar-15 20:04

irneb

2-Mar-15 20:04

I agree in principle with what you're saying. The trouble is Windows has so many holes where a virus / trojan / any sort of malware can enter. E.g. it's quite possible to get infected by simply viewing a web page or email, never mind clicking a link on one. I've always ended up with some sort of infection if I didn't install an AV, it sometimes lasted a year or two, but in the end you always end up with one of Win's holes letting something through (no matter how careful you are). With my Linux machines this is the exact opposite, none of them has any AV running, and none of them has ever been infected in the last 15 years.

As for living in Windows-land without any AV: Though it is quite possible to keep yourself virus-free without any AV running, it's not that easy in the normal world. You have to be extremely strict about what you open, what you view, what emails you even allow inside your inbox (from whom, what sort of attachments, check headers before opening, don't allow auto-open while browsing emails, etc.). And then also any sort of external data source (CD/DVD/BR, USB flash/hdd, network shares, etc.) needs to be "known" not to already contain any "infection" before you even think about them. These steps in themselves may actually cause much more time lost than the AV running in the background.

Where I do agree with you is that most AV's actually feel like Virusses in themselves: They tend to hog lots of RAM, CPU cycles, Disc access, etc. And for what? It's not as if they "produce" anything. It's also no guarantee that you won't be infected, just that most of the already known stuff has a good chance of being stopped before they get in, or if that fails to be removed once they're already festering. It gets to the point where the conspiracy theorist in me starts wondering if these AV companies aren't the actual creators of the viruses - i.e. building their client base by infecting computers.

Mario Vernari2-Mar-15 23:06

2-Mar-15 23:06

Really can't agree more: simply perfect!
I started wondering why there's no virus on Linux: I don't think is particularly better than Win, but rather because the Win world has a well-established market of software behind, while Linux does not.
If a virus were created by some "nerdy" hacker, I believe he'd create for Macs, Linuxes and phones as well: there's no limit to reach the celebrity.

Mine is a suggestion, not a obligation nor a provocation.
Is Office useful? Yes, it's, but I wouldn't purchase (or even install illegally) for writing a letter or calculating the monthly expenses. I believe you mean the point.
I really wondered how some people got my suggestion as a hurt or so...really can't believe my eyes!

Thanks for pointing out the context way better than I could do.

Stefan_Lang1-Mar-15 21:14

Stefan_Lang

1-Mar-15 21:14

On a related note, since you are actively seeking for ptotection of your PC, just a few days ago I read an article on adware/malware removers, and they recommend the free version of MalwareBytes[^] as the best tool for the job. Interestingly, they suggested not to purchase the paid upgrade, because it also contains an AV tool, which would interfere with an already present AV. (Obviously, if you'd like to try the Malwarebytes AV, then of course you can purchase it).

As for AV, I've tried various free ones in the past (Avira, AVG, Avast), and didn't see any great difference apart from the degree of nagging to purchase the non-free upgrade. I've read plenty of articles telling Norton is bad nowadays, and McAfee has degenerated to something closer to Malware than the useful tool it claims to be. Kaspersky has a great reputation, but our company uses it and I strongly suspect it to be the main culprit responsible for our extremely slow boot times and horrible build performance. Unfortunately IT set it up in a way that we have no way to prove that it is indeed causing these issues (it doesn't show up on meters), and when asked about it they just shrug it off Dead | X|

That said, if it really is causing our issues, I suspect it is just a matter of setting it up sensibly.

GOTOs are a bit like wire coat hangers: they tend to breed in the darkness, such that where there once were few, eventually there are many, and the program's architecture collapses beneath them. (Fran Poretto)

Sibeesh Passion1-Mar-15 21:34

1-Mar-15 21:34

Thanks a lot for such a great explanation. I have already ordered Kaspereskey today morning Smile | :)

MuckersMate2-Mar-15 1:22

2-Mar-15 1:22

I've been using Kaspersky for a number of years after previously using ESET, Norton etc.

I haven't had any problems but be aware that, compared to others I've used, it is a resource hog. Depending on what spec of machine you're using, this may or may not be an issue.

Sibeesh Passion1-Mar-15 21:35

1-Mar-15 21:35

Finally I have ordered Kaspereskey today morning. Thanks a lot for all of your suggestion.

azimuth1-Mar-15 23:33

azimuth

1-Mar-15 23:33

It should be Avira.
Look here, the results explain why.
Avira has almost no impact on the performance of your system, I am using it for years.

http://www.av-comparatives.org/[^]

Sibeesh Passion2-Mar-15 1:22

2-Mar-15 1:22

Thanks a lot for the info. But I have already ordered Kaspereskey Frown | :(

azimuth2-Mar-15 1:27

azimuth

2-Mar-15 1:27

Maybe a wrong choice.
It is good at detection, but people around me told me that it has perf impact on the system.

Sibeesh Passion2-Mar-15 1:35

2-Mar-15 1:35

Hmm, Since I have already ordered, I will try kaspereskey, and if that is not good, I will try that Smile | :)