[pchelpers] Re: [pchelpers]
- From: John Durham <john.modec@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: pchelpers@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2003 14:21:35 +1300
There are several issues, so I will try to address each one:
1) Resources: Running more than 1 program when you don't have to uses
memory and CPU time that could be put to better use. It may also hang
the system at times.
2) Protection: The degree of protection is provided by the smartest
program with the most recent virus definitions update. It cannot be
better than its last update. Any virus appearing after that may easily
find its way into the system because the antivirus program does not know
about it yet.
3) Comparisons: Different programs may do better in certain areas
because of their detection algorithms. For example, Norton was able to
detect Word macro virus types well before Macafee could. Since then,
Macafee have dealt with the problem and they continue to compete for the
market.
4) Problems: Some versions of Norton software do cause problems and
crashes with the operating system resulting from a habit of trying to
take over various processes in it. AVG on the other hand just runs on
the system and seldom causes a problem.
5) Updates: All the antivirus makers put effort into keeping their
listings up to date. As they discover new virus programs daily (at least
6 or 7 a day), these get added the moment fixes for them can be created.
This keeps the antivirus products competing for first place all the
time, and places keep changing.
6) Algorithms: Many virus types can be recognised by their individual
signitures, but many employ very smart techniques to hide and spread.
Keeping up with these is more complex than just recognising and removing
them. Some change into several forms and hide files under random names
to protect themselves. This sort of strategy requires antivirus makers
to know thir strategies and write methods to find and remove all these
possible variations. This means program updates as well as virus
definition updates.
So now you can appreciate what I mean by saying 'two programs for twice
the protection' is just too simplistic.
Bob & Ellen Mickelson wrote:
>I'd like to know what the advantage is of running two anti virus programs and
>is that even a good idea? Doesn't that take a ton of resources? Do any of
>you guys run two different programs?
>I have Norton Corporate version and am looking at Avast 4 home. Do I even
>NEED two? Is that twice the protection.....as in: What one doesn't get, the
>other one will? Or what?
>curious...
>
>Ellen
>
--
Regards, John Durham <http://modecideas.com/contact.html?sig>
ICQ number 112663246
Fax/Phone 64 4 5286786
Award winning web site at http://modecideas.com?sig
Order my latest e-book at http://modecideas.com/dmaxhits.htm?sig
PC-HELPERS list subscribe/unsub at http://modecideas.com/discuss.htm?sig
Good advice is like good paint- it only works if applied.
Regards, John Durham (list moderator) <http://modecideas.com/contact.html?sig>
Freelists login at http://www.freelists.org/cgi-bin/lsg2.cgi
List archives at http://www.freelists.org/archives/pchelpers
PC-HELPERS list subscribe/unsub at http://modecideas.com/discuss.htm?sig
Good advice is like good paint- it only works if applied.
- Follow-Ups:
- [pchelpers] Re: [pchelpers]
- From: Scott McNay
- References:
- [pchelpers]
- From: Bob & Ellen Mickelson
Other related posts:
- » [pchelpers] Re: [pchelpers]
- » [pchelpers] Re: [pchelpers]
- » [pchelpers] Re: [pchelpers]
- » [pchelpers] Re: [pchelpers]
- » [pchelpers] Re: [pchelpers]
- » [pchelpers] Re: [pchelpers]
- » [pchelpers] Re: [pchelpers]
- » [pchelpers] Re: [pchelpers]
- » [pchelpers] Re: [pchelpers]
- » [pchelpers] Re: [pchelpers]
- » [pchelpers] Re: [pchelpers]
- » [pchelpers] Re: [pchelpers]
- » [pchelpers] Re: [pchelpers]
- » [pchelpers] Re: [pchelpers]
- » [pchelpers] Re: [pchelpers]
- » [pchelpers] Re: [pchelpers]
- » [pchelpers] Re: [pchelpers]
- » [pchelpers] Re: [pchelpers]
- » [pchelpers] Re: [pchelpers]
- » [pchelpers] Re: [pchelpers]
- » [pchelpers] Re: [pchelpers]
- » [pchelpers] Re: [pchelpers]
- » [pchelpers] Re: [pchelpers]
- » [pchelpers] Re: [pchelpers]
- » [pchelpers] Re: [pchelpers]
- » [pchelpers] Re: [pchelpers]
- » [pchelpers] Re: [pchelpers]
- » [pchelpers] Re: [pchelpers]
- » [pchelpers] Re: [pchelpers]
- » [pchelpers] Re: [pchelpers]
- » [pchelpers] Re: [pchelpers]
- » [pchelpers] Re: [pchelpers]
- » [pchelpers] Re: [pchelpers]
- » [pchelpers] Re: [pchelpers]
- » [pchelpers] Re: [pchelpers]
- » [pchelpers] Re: [pchelpers]
- » [pchelpers] Re: [pchelpers]
- » [pchelpers] Re: [pchelpers]
- » [pchelpers] Re: [pchelpers]
- » [pchelpers] Re: [pchelpers]
- » [pchelpers] Re: [pchelpers]
- » [pchelpers] Re: [pchelpers]
- » [pchelpers] Re: [pchelpers]
- » [pchelpers] Re: [pchelpers]
- » [pchelpers] Re: [pchelpers]
- » [pchelpers] Re: [pchelpers]
- » [pchelpers] Re: [pchelpers]
- » [pchelpers] Re: [pchelpers]
- » [pchelpers] Re: [pchelpers]
- » [pchelpers] Re: [pchelpers]
- » [pchelpers] Re: [pchelpers]
- » [pchelpers] Re: [pchelpers]
- » [pchelpers] Re: [pchelpers]
- » [pchelpers] pchelpers
- » [pchelpers] Re: pchelpers
- » [pchelpers] Re: [pchelpers]
- » [pchelpers] Re: [pchelpers]
- » [pchelpers] Re: [pchelpers]
- » [pchelpers] Re: [pchelpers]
- » [pchelpers] [pchelpers]
- » [pchelpers] Re: [pchelpers]
- » [pchelpers] Re: [pchelpers]
- » [pchelpers] Re: [pchelpers]
- » [pchelpers] Re: [pchelpers]
- » [pchelpers] Re: [pchelpers]
- » [pchelpers] Re: [pchelpers]
- » [pchelpers] Re: [pchelpers]
- » [pchelpers] Re: [pchelpers]
- » [pchelpers] Re: [pchelpers]
- » [pchelpers] Re: [pchelpers]
- [pchelpers] Re: [pchelpers]
- From: Scott McNay
- [pchelpers]
- From: Bob & Ellen Mickelson