New version of Avast released
in [Freeware]
|
Prev: Puran Defrag
Next: {UPDATE} VLC media player 1.0.5
From: Max Wachtel on 1 Feb 2010 20:36 On Mon, 01 Feb 2010 19:32:34 -0500, Daniel Mandic <daniel_mandic(a)aon.at> wrote: > Max Wachtel wrote: > >> On Mon, 01 Feb 2010 18:31:39 -0500, philo <philo(a)privacy.invalid> >> wrote: >> >> > Max Wachtel wrote: >> >>On Mon, 01 Feb 2010 13:07:50 -0500, s|b <me(a)privacy.invalid> wrote: >> > > >> > > > On Mon, 1 Feb 2010 12:42:57 -0000, Steve Terry wrote: >> > > > >> > > > > Same here, prefer 4.8 home >> > > > > >> > > > > Unless 5 is shown to catch more viruses, or some other >> > > > > advantage I'll stick to 4.8 >> > > > >> > > > Any idea how long 4.8 will be supported? >> > > > >> > > I read in the avast forums that 4.8 will be supported for a few >> > > months then it will be necessary to upgrade. >> > > http://forum.avast.com/index.php?topic=54532.0 >> > >> > >> > >> > FWIW: >> > >> > The last machine I installed it on was an AMD-450 with 256 megs of >> > RAM and I did not notice any slowdown >> > >> > Of course the OS was Win2k which is pretty light as compared to XP >> > , Vista or Win7 >> > >> > >> > There are some simple OS tweaks to speed up general performance >> > if that becomes a problem >> >> hey,I am still using w2k! > > What is w2k? Windows 2000-NT 5.00.2195 -- Max Wachtel This post was created using Opera(a)USB: http://www.opera-usb.com Virus Removal Instructions http://sites.google.com/site/keepingwindowsclean/home Max's Favorite Freeware http://sites.google.com/site/keepingwindowsclean/freeware
From: H-Man on 2 Feb 2010 10:08 On Tue, 2 Feb 2010 00:36:47 +0000 (UTC), Bear Bottoms wrote: > Olivier <olivier(a)invalid.invalid> wrote in news:hk7r48$ieo$1(a)news.eternal- > september.org: > >> The best one would be the one that removes all software from the Chinese >> company that you like to promote here in this ng. >> > > Franklin, it just so happens that Microsoft Security Essentials now > actually has the best freeware antivirus IMO and applying IMMUNET Protect > on top of it is da bomb. RISING FreeRAV pure freeware is second, followed > by AntiVir (adware), AVAST and AVG nag-registerware. I dread to even list > AVG as there are actually other pure freeware AV's better than it. > > AntiVir, AVAST and AVG had better be suited with other realtime Malware > programs to hold up to MSE and FreeRAV. I'm now using MSE and liking it, although sometimes it noticeably slows things down. Not often, just occasionally, and not for long, just a hickup in typing and stuff like that. This goes away when I disable it. Never had that happen, at least that I noticed, with Avast. I do like it enough that I'll keep it for a bit though. AntiVir is good too and seems light on resources, but I get far too many false positives with it to make it fully useful for me. -- HK
From: Daniel Mandic on 2 Feb 2010 17:37 Bear Bottoms wrote: > "Daniel Mandic" <daniel_mandic(a)aon.at> wrote in news:4b6772a1$0$1549 > $91cee783(a)newsreader03.highway.telekom.at: > > What is true about that 64bit GfX port, implemented in XP? Anyone!? > > > > > > It's blazing fast if you can find programs designed to run on it :) phhhh, how do you mean that? I run on my NT5.1/DOS anything between 1974 and 2010 (if not too ego-shooter and 3d capabailities). DOS, Win3, Win9x, Nt4, even Windows 7 I should try a look ;) But I guess that my chipest can't wear a windows 7 capable GfX Card... XP is still ok on it (1996 chipdet!" XP=2001 ~2002) -- Daniel Mandic
From: Daniel Mandic on 2 Feb 2010 17:39 Max Wachtel wrote: > Windows 2000-NT 5.00.2195 I was since ever surprised about NT, indeed. Might be that it takes a load of RAM, but it works... -- Daniel Mandic
From: Franklin on 2 Feb 2010 19:40
Bear Bottoms wrote: > "Daniel Mandic" <daniel_mandic(a)aon.at> wrote in news:4b68a930$0$1543 > $91cee783(a)newsreader04.highway.telekom.at: > >> Bear Bottoms wrote: >> >>> "Daniel Mandic" <daniel_mandic(a)aon.at> wrote in news:4b6772a1$0$1549 >>> $91cee783(a)newsreader03.highway.telekom.at: >>> > What is true about that 64bit GfX port, implemented in XP? Anyone!? >>> > >>> > >>> >>> It's blazing fast if you can find programs designed to run on it :) >> >> phhhh, how do you mean that? I run on my NT5.1/DOS anything between >> 1974 and 2010 (if not too ego-shooter and 3d capabailities). DOS, Win3, >> Win9x, Nt4, even Windows 7 I should try a look ;) >> >> But I guess that my chipest can't wear a windows 7 capable GfX Card... >> XP is still ok on it (1996 chipdet!" XP=2001 ~2002) > > The ability of 64 is something like 64 to the 64th power. Calculate that > against 32 to the 32nd power. You might want to check that. > Huge difference in processing ability. If you can find programs that > make use of that, you will see incredible processing ability. -- |