I've not had any problems with AVG so far. Afaik!
But i definitely think anti-malware stuff is definitely one of those
things that people have to make up their own minds about which is best
for them. After-all if it works really well then you never know it's
doing anything. if it does log lots of things happening then is that
stuff that it's making up or would the attacks have happened anyway.
It's a bit like the fella in Peckham sprinkling anti-elephant powder
on his doorstep each morning. It 'obviously' works because there are
no elephants in Peckham.
Even better is the example from House MD where a lady said that her
monthles had stopped but that was one of the possible side effects of
her birth-control pills working. House pointed out it was also a
possible side-effect of her pills NOT working.
*From:* Andrew Brown <firstname.lastname@example.org>
*To:* Tom Davies <email@example.com>
*Cc:* Kracked_P_P---webmaster <firstname.lastname@example.org>;
*Sent:* Tuesday, 6 August 2013, 19:05
*Subject:* Re: [libreoffice-users] start up speed
You are on track, but one thing I will give in defence of freeware
malware protection, is MS Security Essentials. It along with the MS
firewall built in and Windows Defender built in and activated
MSSE installed, make for a not bad system. And you are correct, MS
sure are fully aware of their exploitable code/bugs/weaknesses, not
necessary found by themselves, but by very clever honest and
malware practitioners out there. With personal experience, usage and
fighting a good fight, my trust of AVG has waned big time, and
now top, as I said for freeware. One must remember freeware tools are
not strong with active protection and scanning of your system,
in devices and email, this is where MSSE does excel.
In this order, I mention a Linux scanner that is now ported to MS, as
it's not bad and totally opensource.
3. ClamAV for Windows
For payware there is only two, by continuous test, both personal,
business and enterprize, and without starting a flame war
On 06/08/2013 04:30 PM, Tom Davies wrote:
> Hi :)
> Good point. I only had the anti-malware stuff running. None of
the usual other windows open.
> On Windows machines i typically have 2 running.
> 1. Microsoft Security Essentials, the one that kinda forces
it's way onto your system through automatic updates and stuff even
if you don't want it
> 2. A free one. Usually AVG in the company where i kinda work.
In a different place i might be using a different one but AVG
seems reasonably ok to me.
> On machines that are desperately slow running like that i switch
off one or the other. Usually the MS one because i still don't
completely trust it yet.
> The number 1 job of any malware has to be to either knock-out
the anti-malware stuff or find a way to permanently bypass it
without raising any alarms. So anti-malware stuff needs to think
in a very different way from whatever in-built security might be
around. I don't have any confidence in MS being able to do that.
I think a 3rd party program is more likely to have different
structures. On the other hand MS might have more of an idea where
all their most well-known flaws are and might be able to structure
their one to deal with likely threats. So, who knows which is
going to be best in the next years or so.
> Regards from
> Tom :)
>> From: Kracked_P_P---webmaster <email@example.com
>> To: firstname.lastname@example.org
>> Sent: Tuesday, 6 August 2013, 14:56
>> Subject: Re: [libreoffice-users] start up speed
>> Actually my 3 second test, as stated in a past post, was with 3
>> utilities open on the screen and 2 or 3 Firefox browser windows
>> The utilities are always loaded at boot by my choice. I have
>> windows open with many tabs involved. That is part of my "normal"
>> desktop use so I do not have to keep opening those pages every
>> so, and sometimes 3 or 6 times a day.
>> So with all that background packages, 3 seconds is not bad at
all for a
>> Ubuntu 12.04LTS system.
>> Now on my Win7 laptops, well that is a different story, or similar
>> maybe. I have a "ton" of security packages loaded up at boot time.
>> Also there are some utilities and other options loaded, like
>> management and other "stuff" like that. So there is much more
>> running in the background with the Win7 laptops - both dual
>> different power - so click to splash to ready for work will take
>> longer. To be honest, I am one of those people that believes that
>> Windows is a OS that can be easily infected with "nasties" so
>> have a lot of security utilities running to keep that from
>> know some fools that do not even run anti-virus packages. They
>> bother", "I am safe", "I never go to sites that will infect
me", or my
>> favorite "It will never happen to me. You are just paranoid".
>> So, the key is that fact that LO is faster loading to a usable
>> now, than it was last year. Also, it is not the speed to the
>> screen, but the speed of how long it will take till you are
able to use
>> the package.
>> So if you run all of the security package, like I do, on
>> will take longer to load up completely than with less
>> same with Linux and how much is running in the background. The
>> system, down to the exact same CPU, RAM, drive, OS, etc., will take
>> different times depending on what is installed and running. Even a
>> fragmented drive will reduce the load and usage speeds.
>> So let us just say LO is loading faster than before and if a person
>> cannot wait for a few seconds for load time, then they will not
>> with most packages out there that does similar "work". Tablets
>> worse load times for their packages and I know of no one
locally who has
>> complained about that.
>> On 08/06/2013 07:06 AM, Andrew Brown wrote:
>>> Ha! Ha! there you go, LO just runs on whatever platform and O/S of
>>> your choice. And for the most part, what is a minute or less
>>> from switch on to productive use of something. I can't make a
>>> tea in that time, and I mean a real brewed cup of tea. Now at
>>> the movies can show an actor sitting down in front of a PC and
>>> instantly start to work on it, I used to laugh at this in the
>>> On 06/08/2013 04:12 AM, Virgil Arrington wrote:
>>>> On 08/05/2013 05:03 PM, Tom Davies wrote:
>>>>> Hi :)
>>>>> That is weird.
>>>>> On this fairly crumby laptop, 2.2GHz (hmmm, not so crumby
>>>>> it took about 0-1 seconds for the LO splash-screen to
>>>>> on my really nice desktop, 1.86GHz (hmmm, not so nice after
>>>>> Both running Ubuntu and fairly old versions of LO (i think).
>>>>> Meanwhile on Windows 2.93GHz it took about 1s to open Writer
>>>>> completely. Didn't even have time to see the splash screen.
>>>> I have a Sony Vaio laptop. I'm running a dual boot Windows 7 and
>>>> Linux Mint 15 (running in the Windows WUBI installer). I just
>>>> using LO 4 on the Linux Mint side and immediately noticed how
>>>> faster it runs on Mint rather than Win7. I'm sure there are a
>>>> variables, and I haven't tested them all, but so far, I'm really
>>>> pleased with the performance of LO on Mint.
>> To unsubscribe e-mail to:
>> Posting guidelines + more:
>> List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/
>> All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and
cannot be deleted
To unsubscribe e-mail to: email@example.com
Posting guidelines + more:
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and
cannot be deleted