'Dustin Cook' wrote, in part:
| I have over 200 client machines with norton loaded, I have before/after
| test results in terms of bootup and gui response times. ...I have...
| lots of usenet posts of users all over with the same issues. Pc
| Magazine posts, etc etc etc. You have to have a high end machine to run
| Norton decently. If your asking do I have this in symantec's own words,
| no.
| It's a bad idea to assume everyone is using a modern PC, by any
| standards. It's further a bad idea to design your antivirus software
| with that notion.
| Their is a point in which bloated code is simply, bloated. Their is no
| reason to code sloppy code simply because you have more room.
_____
Thanks for replying.
Unfortunately, your post includes no data. No test results and analysis.
Evidently you could have provided at least some of that, but you did not.
I, and many others, would like to see the results of your before/after
tests. This newsgroup needs to see more stuff like that. (Though boot up
time is sort of a non-issue also, and I am at a loss as to what 'gui
response time' actually means.)
It is a 'bad idea' to design for the past rather than the present and
future.
What you call 'bloatware' (I'd guess) is a result of economic pressures
hardware is cheaper than software and wetware.
There are more important 'design faults' to worry about that 'footprint'.
Phil Weldon
|
| Phil Weldon wrote:
| > Worms and viruses do work on Windows XP platforms and do not work on
Windows
| > XP platforms. Look at any list of current worms and virus and see the
| > numbers to which Windows 9X platforms are not vulnerable.
|
|
| > Do you have specific information supporting the 'well known fact' that
| > 'Norton AntiVirus has a continued drag' on system resources'? Anecdotes
| > aren't enough.
|
| I have over 200 client machines with norton loaded, I have before/after
| test results in terms of bootup and gui response times. ...I have...
| lots of usenet posts of users all over with the same issues. Pc
| Magazine posts, etc etc etc. You have to have a high end machine to run
| Norton decently. If your asking do I have this in symantec's own words,
| no.
|
| > 'Small footprint' is a non issue for AntiVirus protection.
| > Hard drive space consumed? In the day of 500 MByte OS installation hard
| > drive 'foot prints'? And 13 MByte RAW digital camera images?
|
| It's a bad idea to assume everyone is using a modern PC, by any
| standards. It's further a bad idea to design your antivirus software
| with that notion.
|
| > What else are hard drive space, RAM space, and CPU processing power FOR
but
| > to use?
|
| For the user to use, not some resident antivirus application.
|
| > When 300 GByte hard drives go for $80 USD and 1 GByte RAM for the same,
in
| > what direction should storage footprints be expected to go. A small
|
| Their is a point in which bloated code is simply, bloated. Their is no
| reason to code sloppy code simply because you have more room.
|
| > the loss? As for 'perfection', that's just something you threw in to
| > bolster your assertions. I am sure that if you think about it for a
while,
|
| I didn't intend perfection, as that's impossible. I have no reason to
| bolster anything. I do however work professionally in the IT field, so
| I get to see many machines, some modern, many not so modern, some upto
| the task of dedicating oodles of resources to an antivirus product, but
| many however are not able to dedicate as much. Should they suffer
| protection as a result?
|
| > you can come up with a more precise post, some of which I may agree
with.
|
| I can come up with all sorts of bloatware antivirus code examples sure,
| but I don't think you'd agree with any of it. Bloatware seems to be
| okay in your opinion.
|
| --
| Regards,
| Dustin Cook
|
http://bughunter.atspace.org
|
