Forum - DLL-files.com

On Thu, 16 Apr 2009 13:27:02 -0700, "Terry R." <F1Com@NOSPAMpobox.com>
wrote:

> The date and time was Thursday, April 16, 2009 12:27:39 PM, and on a
> whim, Ken Blake, MVP pounded out on the keyboard:
>
> > On Thu, 16 Apr 2009 09:57:25 -0700, "Terry R." <F1Com@NOSPAMpobox.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> The date and time was Thursday, April 16, 2009 8:53:32 AM, and on a
> >> whim, Gerry pounded out on the keyboard:
> >>
> >>> So Martin you have opted for a resource hog to stifle your system
> >>> performance. Few posting here here would second your proposal!
> >>>
> >>>
> >> New Norton products have significantly reduced the resources that prior
> >> versions used.
> >
> >
> > I have also heard relatively good things about the latest version of
> > Norton Anti-Virus. Nevertheless Norton has a history for the past
> > several years of being the worst such product on the market, and even
> > if they have improved, there is no guarantee that they are anywhere
> > near one of the best.
> >
> > As far as I'm concerned, Norton's abominable recent record means that
> > they have the need to provide a lot of proof that the new version is
> > any good before I would personally use it or recommend it to anyone
> > else.
> >
>
> Check out the links I gave Gerry. It isn't hard to find others.


Those, and any others, represent the results that particular testers
have found. In some respects Norton may be better than others, in
other respects, others may be better than Norton. And the tested
results vary depending on who is doing the testing.

I have very little doubt that Norton is much improved, and the newest
version is no longer at the bottom of the pack. Nevertheless, my point
remains: I am not at all convinced that Norton is now at the top of
pack.

And considering performance Norton's history, I have no confidence
that whatever the real improvement in their ranking is, will keep them
in that improved position. They have earned my lack of respect, and
although they may eventually get some respect back from me, it won't
happen quickly or easily.

--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience
Please Reply to the Newsgroup

The date and time was Thu Apr 16 2009 14:57:43 GMT-0700 (Pacific
Daylight Time), and on a whim, Ken Blake, MVP pounded out on the keyboard:

> On Thu, 16 Apr 2009 13:27:02 -0700, "Terry R." <F1Com@NOSPAMpobox.com>
> wrote:
>
>> The date and time was Thursday, April 16, 2009 12:27:39 PM, and on a
>> whim, Ken Blake, MVP pounded out on the keyboard:
>>
>>> On Thu, 16 Apr 2009 09:57:25 -0700, "Terry R." <F1Com@NOSPAMpobox.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The date and time was Thursday, April 16, 2009 8:53:32 AM, and on a
>>>> whim, Gerry pounded out on the keyboard:
>>>>
>>>>> So Martin you have opted for a resource hog to stifle your system
>>>>> performance. Few posting here here would second your proposal!
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> New Norton products have significantly reduced the resources that prior
>>>> versions used.
>>>
>>> I have also heard relatively good things about the latest version of
>>> Norton Anti-Virus. Nevertheless Norton has a history for the past
>>> several years of being the worst such product on the market, and even
>>> if they have improved, there is no guarantee that they are anywhere
>>> near one of the best.
>>>
>>> As far as I'm concerned, Norton's abominable recent record means that
>>> they have the need to provide a lot of proof that the new version is
>>> any good before I would personally use it or recommend it to anyone
>>> else.
>>>
>> Check out the links I gave Gerry. It isn't hard to find others.
>
>
> Those, and any others, represent the results that particular testers
> have found. In some respects Norton may be better than others, in
> other respects, others may be better than Norton. And the tested
> results vary depending on who is doing the testing.
>
> I have very little doubt that Norton is much improved, and the newest
> version is no longer at the bottom of the pack. Nevertheless, my point
> remains: I am not at all convinced that Norton is now at the top of
> pack.
>
> And considering performance Norton's history, I have no confidence
> that whatever the real improvement in their ranking is, will keep them
> in that improved position. They have earned my lack of respect, and
> although they may eventually get some respect back from me, it won't
> happen quickly or easily.
>

av-comparatives.org isn't just "particular testers".

I just don't see how past performance can continue being a reference
point by so many people. I stopped recommending and installing NAV back
in 2002, and advise clients to use other programs, unless it's a
corporate environment and I highly recommend SAV.

But I don't continue to say that NAV is a "resource hog", as it just
isn't true. It doesn't matter whether they have your "respect", does
it? Are you going to continue to make statements against a company that
are false?

I may never use NAV again, but that doesn't cause me to lead others to
believe it's not a good product if they choose to buy it.


Terry R.
--
Anti-spam measures are included in my email address.
Delete NOSPAM from the email address after clicking Reply.

The date and time was Thu Apr 16 2009 13:49:29 GMT-0700 (Pacific
Daylight Time), and on a whim, Bill in Co. pounded out on the keyboard:

> Ken Blake, MVP wrote:
>> On Thu, 16 Apr 2009 09:57:25 -0700, "Terry R." <F1Com@NOSPAMpobox.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> The date and time was Thursday, April 16, 2009 8:53:32 AM, and on a
>>> whim, Gerry pounded out on the keyboard:
>>>
>>>> So Martin you have opted for a resource hog to stifle your system
>>>> performance. Few posting here here would second your proposal!
>>>>
>>>>
>>> New Norton products have significantly reduced the resources that prior
>>> versions used.
>>
>> I have also heard relatively good things about the latest version of
>> Norton Anti-Virus. Nevertheless Norton has a history for the past
>> several years of being the worst such product on the market, and even
>> if they have improved, there is no guarantee that they are anywhere
>> near one of the best.
>>
>> As far as I'm concerned, Norton's abominable recent record means that
>> they have the need to provide a lot of proof that the new version is
>> any good before I would personally use it or recommend it to anyone
>> else.
>
> Agreed. It was really good back in the DOS days, and perhaps the early
> windows versions days too. After that (and when bought out by Symantec),
> it went downhill.
>
>
>

Lemming? So you continue to pass judgment without knowledge and without
facts regarding their new products? And you offer tech support?


Terry R.
--
Anti-spam measures are included in my email address.
Delete NOSPAM from the email address after clicking Reply.

And you would be replying to...?

FlyingFish wrote:
> I am using WinXP. I was using PCTools AntiVirus program but switched out
> to
> AVG since encountering this problem and have since then added Spybot. I
> am
> using Windows Firewall.
>
> I've done several virus scans but cant seem to find anything of
> significance. Could it be that there is a problem with PS2Bat and not a
> virus?

Terry

Your link compares pure anti-virus software not the composites like Norton
360. However, no Symantec software is freeware so there no incentive to
change to Norton whatever the new Norton Anti-Virus resource requirements
are!


--


Gerry
~~~~
FCA
Stourport, England
Enquire, plan and execute
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



"Terry R." <F1Com@NOSPAMpobox.com> wrote in message
news:OSgr82rvJHA.5392@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> The date and time was Thursday, April 16, 2009 10:24:58 AM, and on a whim,
> Gerry pounded out on the keyboard:
>
>> Terry
>>
>> To the levels of other freeware products?
>>
>>
>
> You're asking in response to my comment that new Norton AV products aren't
> as resource hungry as older versions? (This comment is for those not
> seeing the prior threads and a delimiter issue has removed all prior
> content of the threads)
>
> Doesn't take much to check:
> http://www.av-comparatives.org/comparat ... main-tests
> Download the Feb 09 report
>
> http://reviews.cnet.com/internet-securi ... 46574.html
>
> Terry R.
> --
> Anti-spam measures are included in my email address.
> Delete NOSPAM from the email address after clicking Reply.

Terry

"your original post that is not longer within this part of the thread" It is
still there if you use the right newsreader!


--


Gerry
~~~~
FCA
Stourport, England
Enquire, plan and execute
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Terry R." <F1Com@NOSPAMpobox.com> wrote in message
news:uviHxKsvJHA.5244@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> The date and time was Thursday, April 16, 2009 10:56:09 AM, and on a whim,
> FlyingFish pounded out on the keyboard:
>
>> I am using WinXP. I was using PCTools AntiVirus program but switched out
>> to AVG since encountering this problem and have since then added Spybot.
>> I am using Windows Firewall.
>>
>> I've done several virus scans but cant seem to find anything of
>> significance. Could it be that there is a problem with PS2Bat and not a
>> virus?
>
> Did you search for ps2.bat or ps2bat.dll? You mentioned both files in
> your original post that is not longer within this part of the thread.
>
>
> Terry R.
> --
> Anti-spam measures are included in my email address.
> Delete NOSPAM from the email address after clicking Reply.

On a whim, Gerry pounded out on the keyboard:
> Terry
>
> Your link compares pure anti-virus software not the composites like Norton
> 360. However, no Symantec software is freeware so there no incentive to
> change to Norton whatever the new Norton Anti-Virus resource requirements
> are!
>
>
> "Terry R." <F1Com@NOSPAMpobox.com> wrote in message news:OSgr82rvJHA.5392@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>> > The date and time was Thursday, April 16, 2009 10:24:58 AM, and on a whim,
>> > Gerry pounded out on the keyboard:
>> >
>>> >> Terry
>>> >>
>>> >> To the levels of other freeware products?
>>> >>
>>> >>
>> >
>> > You're asking in response to my comment that new Norton AV products aren't
>> > as resource hungry as older versions? (This comment is for those not
>> > seeing the prior threads and a delimiter issue has removed all prior
>> > content of the threads)
>> >
>> > Doesn't take much to check:
>> > http://www.av-comparatives.org/comparat ... main-tests
>> > Download the Feb 09 report
>> >
>> > http://reviews.cnet.com/internet-securi ... 46574.html
>> >
>> > Terry R.
>> >

Well, for one, there isn't a lot of "free" apps that compares with NS
360, so why would you compare it with a "pure, free AV"? That wouldn't
be fair would it?

And two, paying isn't the point of the discussion now, is it! It's
about people who continue to state that NAV is a resource hog as YOU
did, when clearly it isn't any longer. Your failure of facts is the point!

And I've gone ahead and taken the time to correct what your insistence
to top posting and using a sig file causes using the defective OE.

Terry R.
--
Anti-spam measures are included in my email address.
Delete NOSPAM from the email address after clicking Reply.

The date and time was Thu Apr 16 2009 13:51:13 GMT-0700 (Pacific
Daylight Time), and on a whim, Gerry pounded out on the keyboard:

> Terry
>
> "your original post that is not longer within this part of the thread" It is
> still there if you use the right newsreader!
>
>

I'm USING a "right" newsreader. I didn't say what you stated above, but
your insistence of not fixing OE doesn't allow that to show here, now
does it?

In case you didn't know, many people have their newsreaders set to only
show unread messages. So when the continuity is broken within a post,
how can they follow it? You don't care, right? Otherwise you would
respect how others may be following threads and make sure enough info is
left in each post to follow it.

Clearly from you continuing to reply at the top using a sig in OE, NO
ONE has any idea at this point that this post (and many of your others)
are even related to the Subject!


Terry R.
--
Anti-spam measures are included in my email address.
Delete NOSPAM from the email address after clicking Reply.

On Thu, 16 Apr 2009 16:40:14 -0700, "Terry R." <F1Com@NOSPAMpobox.com>
wrote:

>The date and time was Thu Apr 16 2009 13:51:13 GMT-0700 (Pacific
>Daylight Time), and on a whim, Gerry pounded out on the keyboard:
>
>> Terry
>>
>> "your original post that is not longer within this part of the thread" It is
>> still there if you use the right newsreader!
>>
>>
>
>I'm USING a "right" newsreader. I didn't say what you stated above, but
>your insistence of not fixing OE doesn't allow that to show here, now
>does it?
>
>In case you didn't know, many people have their newsreaders set to only
>show unread messages.

[snip]

AND to delete messages that HAVE been read when collecting new
messages.

The date and time was Thursday, April 16, 2009 5:16:58 PM, and on a
whim, Steve McGarrett pounded out on the keyboard:

> On Thu, 16 Apr 2009 16:40:14 -0700, "Terry R." <F1Com@NOSPAMpobox.com>
> wrote:
>
>> The date and time was Thu Apr 16 2009 13:51:13 GMT-0700 (Pacific
>> Daylight Time), and on a whim, Gerry pounded out on the keyboard:
>>
>>> Terry
>>>
>>> "your original post that is not longer within this part of the thread" It is
>>> still there if you use the right newsreader!
>>>
>>>
>> I'm USING a "right" newsreader. I didn't say what you stated above, but
>> your insistence of not fixing OE doesn't allow that to show here, now
>> does it?
>>
>> In case you didn't know, many people have their newsreaders set to only
>> show unread messages.
>
> [snip]
>
> AND to delete messages that HAVE been read when collecting new
> messages.

Good point. But since deleting messages only occurs locally, one can
re-download and retrieve them again. But who wants to do that, or why
should one have to?


Terry R.
--
Anti-spam measures are included in my email address.
Delete NOSPAM from the email address after clicking Reply.

You guys have Severe Anti-Virus Noob Disease < jokes, don't take that as a serious insult. I have tryed Norton, AVG, and about 15/16 other AV programs and I would says Sophos Anti-Virus is the best!

I appreciate the concern which is been rose. The things need to be sorted out because it