5 ms·

It's hard for me to believe that anyone uses this crap software. A few years ago I spent hours uninstalling it for a friend. It has slowed his laptop to a cra

by e40 10y ago

It's hard for me to believe that anyone uses this crap software. A few years ago I spent hours uninstalling it for a friend. It has slowed his laptop to a crawl and he was about to buy a new one. After the uninstall, it was snappy enough to use for a few more years. Really, that software is some of the worst I've ever witnessed, and I've seen some shit.

dvhh 10y ago
Before windows 10, windows antivirus were the best advertising for Apple computers
- nnx 10y ago
  What has Windows 10 changed on this front?
  - sjg007 10y ago
    Presumably now Windows 10 is the best advertisement for Apple
  - yuhong 10y ago
    In this case, things like SmartScreen and Windows Defender was introduced in Win8.
- FuturePromise 10y ago
  Dang tells me that "joke" answers that don't add to the conversation aren't welcome.
  - chipperyman573 10y ago
    Comments that add to conversation and happen to be phrased in a witty way are.
    - FuturePromise 10y ago
      Making fun of Windows is "witty?" I thought this was a more serious forum.
- Mandatum 10y ago
  "Apple Computers Don't Get Viruses" Still a very common misconception, however it's fair to say that macOS is still much "less likely" to be infected because of quantity. Yes, there are now drive-by packs, crypters and RAT's that include OSX as a target. But the ratio for infections would be vastly lower.
  - wyqydsyq 10y ago
    Size of user base is pretty much irrelevant to how vulnerable an OS is, Linux/GNU and BSD derivative operating systems are inherently more secure than NT based ones due to user/group permissions and privilege escalation being a core aspect of the former, and a tacked-on afterthought of the latter.
    - Mandatum 10y ago
      likelihood of infection != vulnerability If you live in a bad neighbourhood, you're more likely to get shot. If you live in a nice neighbourhood, you might get shot, but it's much less likely. The ability for someone to shoot you in each neighbourhood is irrelevant when talking about likelihood of being shot.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
    - pjmlp 10y ago
      NT has a more secure model than UNIX since day one, modeled on top of object capabilities, much more powerful than UGW permissions. If people decide to run as root that's their problem. Also you don't need root to exploit UNIX users, getting hold of their $HOME is way more valuable than getting hold of the OS.
      - mappu 10y ago
        >object capabilities, much more powerful than UGW permissions. man 5 acl >If people decide to run as root that's their problem. Also you don't need root to exploit UNIX users, getting hold of their $HOME is way more valuable than getting hold of the OS. Same on windows.
phaus 10y ago
I haven't used it in about a decade, but the corporate version used to be pretty lightweight compared to the retail version. I started using the corporate edition soon after I joined the military because we got it for free. There was an immediate and noticeable improvement in my pc's performance after replacing the retail version.
nikanj 10y ago
Regulations mandate picking one of the available crap softwares.
heywire 10y ago
I work for a Fortune 500 company who just switched away from the product mentioned in this article for one which I'm sure isn't much better. Besides the overall performance impact, we also have a daily virus scan that runs at noon on every system. Don't normally take your lunch at noon? Oh well, you certainly won't be getting any work done.
- Spooky23 10y ago
  That's a purely self-inflicted wound. Someone in IT/ISO has more power than sense.
emmelaich 10y ago
It comes pre-installed on many machines, and the mindshare is large. I also attempted to remove Norton from a friend's computer a few years ago. I failed and later discovered that was actually unable to be uninstalled. Norton published some instructions to let you remove parts to the point you could ignore it at least. I swore to never to touch anything from Norton/Symantec ever again. I bought ESET/nod for a few machines but now I rely entirely on Windows Defender for the few Windows machines I own.
- mmsmatt 10y ago
  ESET brings back good memories, I was a happy customer as long as I administered Windows boxes. I never remember a false positive with ESET/Nod32. Norton, OTOH, would happily delete nmap.exe and cain.exe then beg for praise after the fact, a kitten with her first kill.
  - kmch 10y ago
    Everywhere I see lots of praise for ESET, but the program isn't even capable of installing itself properly on my system. If I then try to uninstall it it can't even do that and I have to go into safe mode to uninstall it from there, using their uninstall tool, which thankfully worked.
sidcool 10y ago
Same here. We have moved to something called Sophos.
- packetslave 10y ago
  Sophos does not exactly have a good security reputation either... https://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2012/11/05/tavis-ormandy-sophos/ https://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2012/11/05/tavis-ormandy-so...

by e40 10y ago

dvhh 10y ago

Before windows 10, windows antivirus were the best advertising for Apple computers

nnx 10y ago
What has Windows 10 changed on this front?
- sjg007 10y ago
  Presumably now Windows 10 is the best advertisement for Apple
- yuhong 10y ago
  In this case, things like SmartScreen and Windows Defender was introduced in Win8.
FuturePromise 10y ago
Dang tells me that "joke" answers that don't add to the conversation aren't welcome.
- chipperyman573 10y ago
  Comments that add to conversation and happen to be phrased in a witty way are.
  - FuturePromise 10y ago
    Making fun of Windows is "witty?" I thought this was a more serious forum.
Mandatum 10y ago
"Apple Computers Don't Get Viruses" Still a very common misconception, however it's fair to say that macOS is still much "less likely" to be infected because of quantity. Yes, there are now drive-by packs, crypters and RAT's that include OSX as a target. But the ratio for infections would be vastly lower.
- wyqydsyq 10y ago
  Size of user base is pretty much irrelevant to how vulnerable an OS is, Linux/GNU and BSD derivative operating systems are inherently more secure than NT based ones due to user/group permissions and privilege escalation being a core aspect of the former, and a tacked-on afterthought of the latter.
  - Mandatum 10y ago
    likelihood of infection != vulnerability If you live in a bad neighbourhood, you're more likely to get shot. If you live in a nice neighbourhood, you might get shot, but it's much less likely. The ability for someone to shoot you in each neighbourhood is irrelevant when talking about likelihood of being shot.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - pjmlp 10y ago
    NT has a more secure model than UNIX since day one, modeled on top of object capabilities, much more powerful than UGW permissions. If people decide to run as root that's their problem. Also you don't need root to exploit UNIX users, getting hold of their $HOME is way more valuable than getting hold of the OS.
    - mappu 10y ago
      >object capabilities, much more powerful than UGW permissions. man 5 acl >If people decide to run as root that's their problem. Also you don't need root to exploit UNIX users, getting hold of their $HOME is way more valuable than getting hold of the OS. Same on windows.

phaus 10y ago

I haven't used it in about a decade, but the corporate version used to be pretty lightweight compared to the retail version. I started using the corporate edition soon after I joined the military because we got it for free. There was an immediate and noticeable improvement in my pc's performance after replacing the retail version.

nikanj 10y ago

Regulations mandate picking one of the available crap softwares.

heywire 10y ago

I work for a Fortune 500 company who just switched away from the product mentioned in this article for one which I'm sure isn't much better. Besides the overall performance impact, we also have a daily virus scan that runs at noon on every system. Don't normally take your lunch at noon? Oh well, you certainly won't be getting any work done.

Spooky23 10y ago
That's a purely self-inflicted wound. Someone in IT/ISO has more power than sense.

emmelaich 10y ago

It comes pre-installed on many machines, and the mindshare is large. I also attempted to remove Norton from a friend's computer a few years ago. I failed and later discovered that was actually unable to be uninstalled. Norton published some instructions to let you remove parts to the point you could ignore it at least. I swore to never to touch anything from Norton/Symantec ever again. I bought ESET/nod for a few machines but now I rely entirely on Windows Defender for the few Windows machines I own.

mmsmatt 10y ago
ESET brings back good memories, I was a happy customer as long as I administered Windows boxes. I never remember a false positive with ESET/Nod32. Norton, OTOH, would happily delete nmap.exe and cain.exe then beg for praise after the fact, a kitten with her first kill.
- kmch 10y ago
  Everywhere I see lots of praise for ESET, but the program isn't even capable of installing itself properly on my system. If I then try to uninstall it it can't even do that and I have to go into safe mode to uninstall it from there, using their uninstall tool, which thankfully worked.

sidcool 10y ago

Same here. We have moved to something called Sophos.

packetslave 10y ago
Sophos does not exactly have a good security reputation either... https://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2012/11/05/tavis-ormandy-sophos/ https://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2012/11/05/tavis-ormandy-so...