Seriously, has anybody ever seen a serious virus problem in Windows when using AV protection?
in [Anti-Virus]
|
Prev: AVG with Google Chrome
Next: Seriously, has anybody ever seen a serious virus problem inWindows when using AV protection?
From: Leythos on 25 Mar 2010 14:40 In article <tu3nq5ddq2q079cei1253olmfmpqnvu3a6(a)4ax.com>, none(a)none.invalid says... > > On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 08:06:39 -0400, Leythos <spam999free(a)rrohio.com> > wrote: > > >In article <1dklq5pl1slkc856n8c2tu8t0fu14cet5e(a)4ax.com>, > >none(a)none.invalid says... > >> > >> On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 20:19:14 -0400, Leythos <spam999free(a)rrohio.com> > >> wrote: [snip] > >> If you assume a power savings of 50 watts (low power state versus off > >> state) and a KWh cost of $.10, my back of the napkin calculation is > >> just under $15 a year in savings. Obviously, the actual numbers will > >> vary depending on the specific system and the local cost of power, > >> causing the result to vary. > > > >Why would you make an "Assumption" instead of actually learning how much > >your system is using? > > A better question would be why would you, or anyone else here, be the > least bit interested in what *my* system is all about? The only thing > that should be important to you is *your* system. I know about my > system(s), but I don't have any information about yours, so you'll > have to figure it out for yourself. My example should help get you > started. Maybe, just, maybe, you replied with "If you assume..." as part of your reply... So, it's not that we really give a rats butt about your system, just wondering why you "assumed" instead of actually checking? -- You can't trust your best friends, your five senses, only the little voice inside you that most civilians don't even hear -- Listen to that. Trust yourself. spam999free(a)rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)
From: Char Jackson on 25 Mar 2010 14:55 On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 14:40:30 -0400, Leythos <spam999free(a)rrohio.com> wrote: >In article <tu3nq5ddq2q079cei1253olmfmpqnvu3a6(a)4ax.com>, >none(a)none.invalid says... >> >> On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 08:06:39 -0400, Leythos <spam999free(a)rrohio.com> >> wrote: >> >> >In article <1dklq5pl1slkc856n8c2tu8t0fu14cet5e(a)4ax.com>, >> >none(a)none.invalid says... >> >> >> >> On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 20:19:14 -0400, Leythos <spam999free(a)rrohio.com> >> >> wrote: >[snip] >> >> If you assume a power savings of 50 watts (low power state versus >off >> >> state) and a KWh cost of $.10, my back of the napkin calculation is >> >> just under $15 a year in savings. Obviously, the actual numbers will >> >> vary depending on the specific system and the local cost of power, >> >> causing the result to vary. >> > >> >Why would you make an "Assumption" instead of actually learning how much >> >your system is using? >> >> A better question would be why would you, or anyone else here, be the >> least bit interested in what *my* system is all about? The only thing >> that should be important to you is *your* system. I know about my >> system(s), but I don't have any information about yours, so you'll >> have to figure it out for yourself. My example should help get you >> started. > >Maybe, just, maybe, you replied with "If you assume..." as part of your >reply... So, it's not that we really give a rats butt about your system, >just wondering why you "assumed" instead of actually checking? I don't think that would have helped, but your point is taken. :)
From: Leythos on 25 Mar 2010 15:09 In article <tbcnq5his1cul60bin118vej8fdpk0upqo(a)4ax.com>, none(a)none.invalid says... > > On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 14:40:30 -0400, Leythos <spam999free(a)rrohio.com> > wrote: > > >In article <tu3nq5ddq2q079cei1253olmfmpqnvu3a6(a)4ax.com>, > >none(a)none.invalid says... > >> > >> On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 08:06:39 -0400, Leythos <spam999free(a)rrohio.com> > >> wrote: > >> > >> >In article <1dklq5pl1slkc856n8c2tu8t0fu14cet5e(a)4ax.com>, > >> >none(a)none.invalid says... > >> >> > >> >> On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 20:19:14 -0400, Leythos <spam999free(a)rrohio.com> > >> >> wrote: > >[snip] > >> >> If you assume a power savings of 50 watts (low power state versus > >off > >> >> state) and a KWh cost of $.10, my back of the napkin calculation is > >> >> just under $15 a year in savings. Obviously, the actual numbers will > >> >> vary depending on the specific system and the local cost of power, > >> >> causing the result to vary. > >> > > >> >Why would you make an "Assumption" instead of actually learning how much > >> >your system is using? > >> > >> A better question would be why would you, or anyone else here, be the > >> least bit interested in what *my* system is all about? The only thing > >> that should be important to you is *your* system. I know about my > >> system(s), but I don't have any information about yours, so you'll > >> have to figure it out for yourself. My example should help get you > >> started. > > > >Maybe, just, maybe, you replied with "If you assume..." as part of your > >reply... So, it's not that we really give a rats butt about your system, > >just wondering why you "assumed" instead of actually checking? > > I don't think that would have helped, but your point is taken. :) I think it would have helped you to really assess your actual savings, if you used real data. My electric cost averages $0.16, but my power differential is so low during off periods, like in your example, that the cost savings is worthless to me - I waste more than $15/month on food I should not be eating :-) -- You can't trust your best friends, your five senses, only the little voice inside you that most civilians don't even hear -- Listen to that. Trust yourself. spam999free(a)rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)
From: Char Jackson on 25 Mar 2010 16:02 On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 15:09:00 -0400, Leythos <spam999free(a)rrohio.com> wrote: >In article <tbcnq5his1cul60bin118vej8fdpk0upqo(a)4ax.com>, >none(a)none.invalid says... >> >> On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 14:40:30 -0400, Leythos <spam999free(a)rrohio.com> >> wrote: >> >> >In article <tu3nq5ddq2q079cei1253olmfmpqnvu3a6(a)4ax.com>, >> >none(a)none.invalid says... >> >> >> >> On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 08:06:39 -0400, Leythos <spam999free(a)rrohio.com> >> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> >In article <1dklq5pl1slkc856n8c2tu8t0fu14cet5e(a)4ax.com>, >> >> >none(a)none.invalid says... >> >> >> >> >> >> On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 20:19:14 -0400, Leythos <spam999free(a)rrohio.com> >> >> >> wrote: >> >[snip] >> >> >> If you assume a power savings of 50 watts (low power state versus >> >off >> >> >> state) and a KWh cost of $.10, my back of the napkin calculation is >> >> >> just under $15 a year in savings. Obviously, the actual numbers will >> >> >> vary depending on the specific system and the local cost of power, >> >> >> causing the result to vary. >> >> > >> >> >Why would you make an "Assumption" instead of actually learning how much >> >> >your system is using? >> >> >> >> A better question would be why would you, or anyone else here, be the >> >> least bit interested in what *my* system is all about? The only thing >> >> that should be important to you is *your* system. I know about my >> >> system(s), but I don't have any information about yours, so you'll >> >> have to figure it out for yourself. My example should help get you >> >> started. >> > >> >Maybe, just, maybe, you replied with "If you assume..." as part of your >> >reply... So, it's not that we really give a rats butt about your system, >> >just wondering why you "assumed" instead of actually checking? >> >> I don't think that would have helped, but your point is taken. :) > >I think it would have helped you to really assess your actual savings, >if you used real data. I didn't feel it was necessary to populate the example with my own actual savings. That's why I used such round numbers. In my own case, I know what my usage, costs, and savings are, but again, I didn't think it would be interesting to anyone else. Besides, it wasn't my example to begin with. Wasn't it you who set the initial parameters of "off 8 hours a day versus on 24/7"? I was just putting sample numbers to that scenario. >My electric cost averages $0.16, but my power differential is so low >during off periods, like in your example, that the cost savings is >worthless to me - I waste more than $15/month on food I should not be >eating :-) $15/month would be significant to some, but I only calculated $15/year, so it really falls into the weeds. And yes, I too waste money on stuff that isn't good for me. :)
From: The Central Scrutinizer on 25 Mar 2010 16:36
"RayLopez99" <raylopez88(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:8d9a4f53-14ac-40a3-9cb4-105fb0e08a00(a)g11g2000yqe.googlegroups.com... > Seriously, has anybody seen--or even heard--of a serious virus > (including rootkit or malware) problem in Windows when using > commercial antivirus protection? Of course. > One of the claims of the Linux crowd is that such problems are > legion. But talking so some of the people at alt.comp.anti-virus I > get the impression such problems are rare. > > Who is more right? > > BTW, check out this PDF on AV software: > http://www.google.com/url?sa=D&q=http://www.av-comparatives.org/images/stories/test/ondret/avc_report22.pdf&usg=AFQjCNEDInyvV2WgWDzeAWeAjzJKLymkDA > > It compares 16 commercial programs, and finds Microsoft at #2, > catching 60% of all viruses (Avanti is #1 at 70%). And we're taking > about all viruses, some of which as so obscure I'm sure you'll never > seen one in the wild... As I recall the comparatives example was for home solutions only. The Corporate solutions may be better namely as the configurations and options may be locked down (which you do not have for the average home user). The #1 concern causing problems either way is users running with local admin privs. AV does not do much good in those cases. Also the baddies are creating new versions of virus types and other malware that the companies can barely keep up with. |