Again, Please let a voice of experience from the field clue you in as to how
the program used to be effective and now is not. I understand that the
program is niched for adware and spyware. My point is that even though that
was the case, and and even after Microsoft included the extra Windows
validation routine, I found that the AntiSpyware beta was the most effective
product I had tried. It now is not as effective. I had almost 100 on-site
appointments last year to rescue infected PCs or to install a new Antivirus
program when the subscription was about to expire, so I know what I am
talking about. I also used to be an antivirus coordinator for a world-wide
company.
I could run the free Trend Micro Housecall or the Free Panda clean-up
utility and, yes, they could clean up the existing infections, but they would
not stop them from coming right back in while I was spending an hour on-line
downloading patches. The AntiSpyware Beta was wonderful in that it could be
quickly installed and most existing infections could not stop it from
installing or updating and it then functioned as a real-time scanner while I
followed up with the time consuming patching.
Without it in place on an infected PC, Norton would rarely install, McAfee
would succeed a bit more and Trend Micro would work most of the time (But I
had to use a little-known technique to force in the latest pattern file)
otherwise many times it would not update because the infection had hijacked
the hosts file.
If you are on the programming team or know someone on the team, I encourage
you to re-engineer the program to be more effective. In the real world, I
have found that if people have to re-format their PCs and reinstall their SP1
XP operating system and start over or do a Manufacturer-supplied System
Restore, it takes so long to apply all the patches needed to get back to a
state of protection, that they often are getting infected while they are
downloading patches! It is unfortunate that the programmers did not realize
that and gave back some of the ground that they had won from the
pusillanimous miscreants who write the junk that is infecting our PCs.
"JoeM" wrote:
> It is designed more to Defend you against spyware . (There are better
> products that clean your machine that is already infected)
>
> "Research Geek" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:86A46844-7922-489D-BE95-(E-Mail Removed)...
> > I'm sorry that you did not understand the problem. Many of the recent
> > adware/spyware/trojan infections block Windows Update, preventing the
> > patching of the loopholes which allow them to work. I have even tried to
> > run
> > the downloaded XP SP2 upgrade on infected PCs and it fails as well. So
> > the
> > new Defender will often be worthless if one is trying to install it on an
> > already infected PC.
> >
> > "JoeM" wrote:
> >
> >> You should be patching the computer anyway.
> >>
> >> "Research Geek" <Research (E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
> >> message
> >> news:B2475477-A97A-41B6-9D20-(E-Mail Removed)...
> >> > The requirement that the XP system be already at SP2 or the W2K system
> >> > have
> >> > the GDI+ patch hampers the usefulness of this program.
> >> >
> >> > Most of the times that I use it is to quickly defend people who have a
> >> > broadband connection but have let their antivirus lapse, or when I have
> >> > to
> >> > uninstall one antivirus program before installing another. The former
> >> > program made a great contribution to cover the PC during the vulnerable
> >> > period between the uninstallation of the lapsed Anti-virus program and
> >> > the
> >> > install of the 2nd. If the PC was infected, the Anti-Spyware beta
> >> > would
> >> > often stop the existing malware from hetting the highground and
> >> > preventing
> >> > the installation of the new antivirus program. After the install, the
> >> > AntiSpyware program remained as a great companion to the new anti-virus
> >> > program.
> >> >
> >> > It is unfortunate that the programmers at Microsoft did not venture far
> >> > enough out of their ivory tower to assess the many ways that their
> >> > former
> >> > program was being used and lessened the usefulness of their program by
> >> > requiring the patches.
> >>
> >>
> >>
>
>
>
Similar Threads
