3 ms·
I think this is because of the assumed level of risk. People don't think it'd happen to them.My colleague's house was nearly burgled. Once that happened, he inv
by cosmodisk 7y ago
I think this is because of the assumed level of risk. People don't think it'd happen to them.My colleague's house was nearly burgled. Once that happened, he invested in intrusion detection system and etc.So his level of assumed risk has gone off the charts. Some years ago I made a suggestion to the company owners that we should ramp up on security,at least starting with getting an antivirus. One said he'd use the insurance from the bank if we get robbed,while the other said it slows down his PC( an avid player)...While now we do have much more than just an antivirus, the assumed level of risk is still pretty low. People simply don't care...
- umvi 7y agoI hate anti-virus software. I have yet to be convinced it is worth the CPU cycles it eats. I would rather reformat my hard drive if there is a malware issue than have McAfee running 24/7
- jstarfish 7y agoThe better ones will alert you before you detonate anything, so having an agent can be useful for preventing less savvy users from getting infected with viruses last seen in 1992.
- pirocks 7y agoNot sure exactly how to phrase this comment. If I see a computer with an antivirus on it(besides the default windows defender thing), I assume it is less secure than something with an antivirus. Most often it was installed by someone who was either mislead about the benefits of an antivirus and/or tricked into installing it. Getting adblock is an massively better way of making a computer secure.
- ACow_Adonis 7y agoI admit, if I see a computer with anti-virus software running on it these days, my first assumption is that its the anti-virus software that's the scam/payload...