Decisions to be made.

Donnie

I haven't disagreed with anything other than your contradictory statements.

I simply pointed out a few relevant facts about AntiVir; this obviously led you into a fit of apoplexy. Amply illustrated, by your attempt to convince all that they should scan their emails individually by hand, to make up for AntiVir's glaring lack of a POP3 scanner.

Next, you try to convince us that a full scan of a HDD or optical disc, as was likely performed in your 'Wiki' link, will show us how the program will perform in a 'live' situation; say surfing the web. It's success at removing the object and other parameters?

You know that a simple virus scan isn't the only criteria, so why try to convince us otherwise?

Of course you don't wish to highlight the test failure, as that rather hurts your argument.

So, rather than banging on about a single product, as you are apt to do, I am suggesting that they shouldn't necessarily rely totally on such a product.

I don't care as to whether you agree with me or not. That's not important.

MercilessKiller

The fact you keep focusing on my "contradictory statements" looks very bad Donnie (and other people agree).

I don't believe I've gone into a "fit" either. I'm merely trying to give the facts on the software which you dont want to believe. And what on earth are you on about with my "scan emails individually". I didn't say that. I said if you get an email with an attachment, to open it it goes into temp files and gets scanned anyway! So as long as you don't open random emails from asafSF@asf.com you won't have a problem.

The Virus Scanner continunally monitors files on your hard drive in the new version. Once again if you go on a malicious website it will instantly detect malicious files downloaded to your temp directory and ask to remove them. As far as I can tell, that's a good thing?!?!

Anti-Vir is a FREE Virus Scanner solution. Its not trying to be anything else. It detects bad things on your hard drive and sorts them out. And it can detect more things than the others. What more woould you need for crying out loud...

When was the test failure? As far as I'm concerned all failures were before the recent versions (from around April). So saying it failed a test 2 years ago, doesn't make a blind bit of differencce to those who want to download it today. If it passed a test in April however, that's a bit more relevant as it's not going to be made worse is it?

Someone wanted to know SPECIFICALLY which ONE product to use. So what did you think I was going to do?!?! Its a good product. It works. It detects viruses. It protects. Its whats needed in this situation. And I know that a lot of other people that read this agree..... That's what matters to me. Not you just trying to be argumentitive .

Bye bye

Donnie

Who are these mysterious people of whom you speak?

First you write that a failed test one year ago is not relevant, but then you post links to tests that are years old.(I emphasised one year because you mysteriously stretched it to two years. Any reason for that?

Is that not contradictory? Who are the people who think that it 'looks bad' when I point out your contradictory statements?

Someone bearing a grudge or an imaginary friend?

it's not going to be made worse is it?

Avira's AntiVir PersonalEdition 7.0 build 151 (Classic) is confirmed to have suffered the vulnerability, and other versions may also be affected. The problem, in the way the product's updater program takes in data for its progress bar, could be exploited by a local user placing the right data into the right memory location, and could be used to gain admin access to the machine.

What is argumentitive?

Of course everyone is welcome to use it, but do your due diligence.

Off for a walk on the beach.

timread

You two still arguing?

For a good roundup of 13 paid and free virus scanners, read PCPro's review from July 2007 here: http://www.pcpro.co.uk/labs/120449/avira-antivir-personaledition-classic.html?searchString=avira

Avira gets an award for best value. I don't doubt that Donnie will find things to pick out of the review to highlight it negatively :rolleyes:... but it's a good option for a free product, and they recognised that by giving it an award. It also had one of the highest detection rates in the test - better than many of the paid products. I got rid of AVG because it just slowed down my machine too much.

If you're happy to pay £28 per year, Kaspersky gets their top A List award.

Donnie

That was nice; feel refreshed.

I think the geniuses here should take note that I haven't actually said that you should not use AntiVir, only that you shouldn't rely upon it solely and to do your due diligence.

Posting links to outdated and incomplete tests has done nothing to change that opinion.

Bleating on about how AntiVir is perfect only serves to make you look a little crazy.

I pointed out some omissions in the product, plain and simple. You attempt to reassure us that they are not necessary.

Interesting that timread's link, above, has backed up exactly what I have been writing.
But then he insinuates that I will look for something negative. Not an intelligent comment. :rolleyes: To be fair, he doesn't claim he is intelligent.

So MK, rather than jumping to your girlfriend's(AntiVir) defence, you could have stepped back and noted what I was actually writing.

Still, you'll probably disagree with PCPro link and insist that the novice can live without those things. :rolleyes:

Some more opinions: http://fileforum.betanews.com/review/1032566653/1/view

MercilessKiller

Donnie,

You're picking out points on the review to shoot Anti-Vir down on, and ignoring all the other stuff, this is the thing.

You're saying some of the tests that proved how "good" it was that I showed was more than a year old.. Well that's because you're overlooking the point of the link, which was the basic April 2007 test which showed how many malicious viruses can be detected. Instead of looking at that, you've picked things to argue about...

These people are people that have Privately messaged me. I'm concerned you seem to think I'd be using "imaginary" friends to help my argument. If you have to use personal remarks to help your argument, then you do look really stupid.. (really).

Tim's comment was very intelligent based on how you've reacted to every other link that's been posted. He recognises that. So do I. So does everyone else.. Oh wait, except you! Wonder why that is *sigh*.

I have purposly avoided linking to posts DIRECTLY talking about Anti Vir. They are not comparison articles and have no statistics. You've linked a personal opinion forum. Which to be honest is hilarious due to how much you've insulted my STATISTICAL links.

I think the argument is over so I'll stop posting now. Donnie, enjoy your holiday, and stop sounding like a <insert word here> on these FRIENDLY forums.

Thanks.

System

I am not, nor will I ever be a moderator, however I am the original poster and as such, maybe I have some say in how this post of mine has developed.

Little did I realise that over 60 posts would be made.

What is sad though, is that whoever MercilessKiller is, I think he has remained calm and polite providing information that many people may well have welcomed, whilst at the same time, under extreme provocation. His knowledge for a 20yr old has impressed me throughout. I hope that doesn't sound condescending.

Not for one minute do I pretend I have understood everything, because I haven't.

Many people would have resorted to *********when constantly criticised, but not MercilessKiller. I do hope we continue to benefit from his input.

superscaper

islandman wrote: »

I am not, nor will I ever be a moderator, however I am the original poster and as such, maybe I have some say in how this post of mine has developed.

Little did I realise that over 60 posts would be made.

What is sad though, is that whoever MercilessKiller is, I think he has remained calm and polite providing information that many people may well have welcomed, whilst at the same time, under extreme provocation. His knowledge for a 20yr old has impressed me throughout. I hope that doesn't sound condescending.

Not for one minute do I pretend I have understood everything, because I haven't.

Many people would have resorted to *********when constantly criticised, but not MercilessKiller. I do hope we continue to benefit from his input.

Your thread does seem to have taken on a bit of a life of its own. Hope santa brought you what you wanted. I got an external hard drive and flash drive, how sad am I?

Donnie

MercilessKiller wrote: »

Donnie,

You're picking out points on the review to shoot Anti-Vir down on, and ignoring all the other stuff, this is the thing.

You're saying some of the tests that proved how "good" it was that I showed was more than a year old.. Well that's because you're overlooking the point of the link, which was the basic April 2007 test which showed how many malicious viruses can be detected. Instead of looking at that, you've picked things to argue about...

These people are people that have Privately messaged me. I'm concerned you seem to think I'd be using "imaginary" friends to help my argument. If you have to use personal remarks to help your argument, then you do look really stupid.. (really).

Tim's comment was very intelligent based on how you've reacted to every other link that's been posted. He recognises that. So do I. So does everyone else.. Oh wait, except you! Wonder why that is *sigh*.

I have purposly avoided linking to posts DIRECTLY talking about Anti Vir. They are not comparison articles and have no statistics. You've linked a personal opinion forum. Which to be honest is hilarious due to how much you've insulted my STATISTICAL links.

I think the argument is over so I'll stop posting now. Donnie, enjoy your holiday, and stop sounding like a <insert word here> on these FRIENDLY forums.

Thanks.

See you later.

PS. It's possible that those who have sent you PMs may hold a grudge and haven't the guts to reveal themselves.

There was never an argument. I posted facts and you railed against them.

You seem to be unable to accept that there could be fault with the program. Either way, I don't care, as I don't have to use it.

For those who wish to take your advice, they can download and install the program without further ado.

It's telling that timread's link concurred almost exactly with what I have posted, but you refuse to acknowledge that fact.

So, in summary, your argument is that Anti Vir is perfect and that one needs nothing else and mine is that it is lacking in some things, though still a good program.

Seeing as you won't post again, I can leave this thread to it's peaceful conclusion.

Missing you already. :rolleyes:

MercilessKiller

superscaper wrote: »

Your thread does seem to have taken on a bit of a life of its own. Hope santa brought you what you wanted. I got an external hard drive and flash drive, how sad am I?

How big are they though that's the key! hehe. I got myself some NAS! This is the first time I've started backing up since my first computer.. 7 years ago! I now feel satisfied haha.

Donnie, never said its perfect.

Right time to prepare for New Years!