Need Recommendation

[Duane Arnold]

Duane Arnold wrote:




Without knowing the specification of the hardware, how would one know
what to recommend? There may be free AV software that is inappropriate
for a 64meg machine, therefore it is common sense to post the spec.

Win 2K is inappropriate for 64 MB machine so what difference does the AV
make since it's running with the O/S?

I fail to see the issue with running an Operating System, written to
run on 64meg, actually on a 64meg machine. I also wonder why there is
so much concern surrounding the OP who is happy to continue to run a
64meg machine for email and I guess, browsing.

I fail to see the big fuss about it. The OP made a post and not only was
a Recommendation made about a (free)AV to look but a little added
advice was given about getting some more ram.

If the OP is happy to do so, then so be it.

The OP can take it or leave it, as it makes no difference to me. I am
not the one using the machine and could less about it.

My post was about someone made a post about the RAM too OP and the OP
responded with some off the wall crap about someone is just trying to
show what he or she knows by making the post with comments on the ram,
which is totally ridiculous statement and was not the case.

Duane

 

[edgewalker]

Finally, someone who understands.

It did help, thanks.

There are too many people who only see things from their frame of reference
and want to impress everyone with how much they know. To heck with the
original question, here's my answer, "your machine is too slow".

You are right, I know the limitations of the machine and am willing to
accept them.

I used AVG on my 486 (64Mhz w/32 Mb) and it worked fine - if you really
didn't mind clicking, going for a cup of coffee, coming back some time later
to watch the screen being painted. It gets so slow that you can see the little
paint crew erecting the scaffolding. )

I'm not blaming the AV app for this, ANY concurrent program will affect it
noticeably. The machine (like yours) wasn't meant to run the OS I was then
using (Win95) but I liked the OS's abilities more than I minded the slowness.

 

[edgewalker]

[snipped "cooling off" scenario]

It is also unrealistic for your average user. Waiting a couple of days
to open an email and then scanning it with an online scanner is
paranoid. If you choose this method, good for you, but it is based on
paranoia and not nescessary.

If you don't use that method regarding incoming attachments, you might as
well not use AV at all. You will be susceptible to any zero day malware
going around.

 

[edgewalker]

Completely agree. I posted a couple of questions here and the only answer I got
was a useless '*that* old machine and only *that* RAM. Scrap it!'

They also seem to think it is irresponsible to be running W9x OSes. To
that I say 'bullshit!' there is nothing wrong with not running the latests and
<cough> greatest platform.

 

[Ed]

If you don't use that method regarding incoming attachments, you might as
well not use AV at all. You will be susceptible to any zero day malware
going around.

LMFAO so I guess I'll just tell my 200 users to wait a couple of days
before opening attachments then, that'll go down well. Guys, get over
your paranoia and remove the tin foil from your heads!

 

[Ed]

I didn't say anything about online scanners, dimbulb. Nor did I say
to wait a couple of days before opening email. You're a perfect
example of why trying to help some here is a waste of time. Get
lost.

Quote "Save other attachments to a test folder but wait a couple of
days before scanning them to give time for av vendors to
develop detection for new malware." End Quote.

I repeat that it is unrealistic for your average user to do this and it
is not nescessary for them to do so.

 

[Ed]

Win 2K is inappropriate for 64 MB machine

No it isn't.

The OP can take it or leave it, as it makes no difference to me. I am
not the one using the machine and could less about it.

....and the penny drops.

 

[James Egan]

If you don't use that method regarding incoming attachments, you might as
well not use AV at all.

That's rubbish. No (normal) user is going to wait two days before
opening attachments. If you're unlucky enough to get some zero day
malware then it's hard luck and you might have to revert to backups or
whatever. There is far more chance of the attachments containing known
malware so using some sort of av is always needed.


Jim.

 

[Duane Arnold]

No it isn't.

I guess according to you.

...and the penny drops.

Who cares?

Duane

 

[Befunge Sudoku]

No it isn't.

http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/professional/evaluation/sysreqs/default.asp lists
64MB as the bare minimum for Windows 2000. We all know what that means - it means have
at least 128Mb or be prepared to put up with very poor system response.

 

[Ed]

I guess according to you.

Well having done it, yes. It runs perfectly fine on 64meg for email
and browsing and it's odd why you find this so unbelivable. But then
these days people don't believe that you can run a fully functional O/S
and word processor in a few hundred k.

Who cares?

You appear to care enough to keep going on about it.

 

[Ed]

http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/professional/evaluation/sysreqs/default.asp lists
64MB as the bare minimum for Windows 2000. We all know what that means - it means have
at least 128Mb or be prepared to put up with very poor system response.

A 64meg Windows 2000 machine will not have any problems running, say,
Outlook Express and AVG.

 

[Befunge Sudoku]

A 64meg Windows 2000 machine will not have any problems running, say,
Outlook Express and AVG.

Where I come from, we shoot poeple who run OE

 

[Ed]

Where I come from, we shoot poeple who run OE

Paranoia is rife in this group!

 

[Art]

They also seem to think it is irresponsible to be running W9x OSes.

Who is "they"? My favorite OS is the Win ME on my wife's old Hp
Pavilion. It hasn't missed a beat in years. Instead of any realtime
"protection" underfoot, I gave her some safe hex training and she
has had no malware problems in spite of her intensive use of the web
and email (using wideband service) for her genealogy research. It can
be done!

Art
http://home.epix.net/~artnpeg

 

[Offbreed]

I tried crucial dot com; they didn't have any memory to fit. Now back to my
original question re: recommendations for a free anti-virus. David offered
one which I shall check into. Any others?

None that will not drive you nuts.

I'd drop back to Win98SE, strip the extra junk, and find an anti virus
for that. (Switching hard drives is pretty easy, and the one in your
computer is probably due, that allows you to put the laptop back the way
is was without having to reload your computer.)

An obscure, Windows software suite is less vulnerable to a mass virus,
and probably more vulnerable to a hacker's personal attention. Keep that
distinction in mind, if this part of the thread turns that way.

This is a really fun site, if you have the bandwidth <G>:

http://www.pricelesswarehome.org/2006/PL2006INTERNET.php

Alternatively, playing with the various free operating systems can be
fun. Lots of people have old computers they don't want to discard, so
they try to write an OS to keep using it. They also share a distaste for
bloat, responsible for a lot of slow down, and write or help develop
what they regard as bloat free software.

Linux and the *BSDs are also possibilities, but their problem is that
you have to be an expert to tell what you can safely discard so you can
get the OS down to a reasonable size. You know how Windows has
"edit.com"? One editor. Linux had at least 6 of that sort, last I
bothered to look. All Linux and BSD is like that, and it takes a bit of
knowing to know you can ignore the fervent argument between a bunch of
posters over which alternative is "vital" and get on with the install.

 

[Offbreed]

Newby wrote:

Absolute nonsense you're speaking here.

"Absolute truth" is more like it. Lot's of people refuse to say "I don't
know how to do what you want by the route you are asking about, but you
can get the same results by..." which at least acknowledges the original
question.

 

[Offbreed]

Art wrote:

Using this method you may as well get your contacts to post it to you,
it would be quicker.

If they actually sent it, yes.

 

[edgewalker]

That's rubbish. No (normal) user is going to wait two days before
opening attachments.

Exactly, that is why email worms are so successful at spreading far and wide
within that window of opportunity.

If you're unlucky enough to get some zero day
malware then it's hard luck and you might have to revert to backups or
whatever

Exactly, everyone should have a good backup plan and not have to worry
about damage caused by malware. They should only use AV for "prevention"
and it is not possible for any reactive AV in existence to prevent the day zero
malware execution. AV is primarily for prevention, not recovery, and not
allowing the defs to catch up with the new malware circumvents that function
with respect to day zero malware.

The same people that refuse to use that cooling off method are the ones that
value an AV with timely def updates because of that fact. Email worms will
continue to exploit this weakness in implementation of prevention methods,
and AV vendors will continue to compete for how quickly they can release
defs for new malware.

Why not just forget AV and use hardware implementations of recovery
schemes like some in the past jere have suggested? Why - because it is
not a preventative measure, and AV is, if used properly as Art suggested.

There is far more chance of the attachments containing known
malware so using some sort of av is always needed.

The idea is to prevent malware from running on the system, not to just
prevent 'some' malware from running on the system. Let others be the
early warning system (miners canary).

 

[edgewalker]

LMFAO so I guess I'll just tell my 200 users to wait a couple of days
before opening attachments then, that'll go down well.

The reason viral malware writers aim for that window is because your
200 users (and yourself - and to be honest millions of others) are leaving
it wide open.

Guys, get over
your paranoia and remove the tin foil from your heads!

Have fun with your next infection...