C
Charles C. Drew
| In |
| AVG is free for home use, but not for corporate use. Many
| corporations use it.
|
| I'm not trying to tell you that AVG is better, worse, or the same
| as Norton. I happen to use Norton myself, and despite the
| opinions of many other MVPs (and other) who I greatly respect, I
| continue to use it because it's always worked well for me.
|
|
| > So far, I've never had an infection on a PC with Norton and a
| > current
| > virus signature list.
|
|
| Nor have I.
|
|
| > I have with AVG.
|
|
| I've never used AVG, and can't comment on it.
|
| The experience of a single user, whether you or me, or even both
| of us taken together hardly counts. Statistics are meaningful
| only when you look at large numbers of users.
I agree with you on both the opinion of a single user and statistically. I
was only giving my personal opinion. You don't have to worry about
offending me. It takes quite a lot to do that.
| > At the corporation I work which has over 48,000 employees and
| > contractors working for it, the only viruses that ever get in
| > are
| > those that haven't been detected yet, and manage to pass
| > through
| > firewalls, intrusion detection, email filters, etc. These are
| > only
| > the most virulent viruses.
| >
| > I can't speak for every other virus scanner software and there
| > are
| > many, but can say I trust Norton far more than I do AVG.
|
|
| Your choice, of course. There are many other AVG users who
| disagree with you. In my opinion (admittedly hearsay--but from
| those whose opinions I trust), AVG does at least as good a job as
| Norton). If Symantec were to go out of business tomorrow, and I
| had to find another anti-virus product, AVG is one of those I
| would definitely consider.
|
| Again, however, I wasn't trying to tell you that AVG was better.
| Despite my using and liking Norton, I was merely commenting that
| your statement "I know of two people in my family alone who have
| gotten viruses on their machines even with AVG running on their
| machines" is not a good reason for the conclusion "Stick with
| Norton." Statistics based on two examples are meaningless.
|
| --
| Ken Blake - Microsoft MVP Windows: Shell/User
| Please reply to the newsgroup
This is where my opinion differs from yours and this seems to be because of
different experiences. I wouldn't choose AVG unless I had no other choice.
I would rather pay for better virus protection than use AVG for free. There
are several anti-virus products out there and I believe several better
choices than AVG.
I just don't think the hassle of cleaning an infected PC is worth the risk
of using any anti-virus software with a questionable reputation. Since I've
personally seen several viruses get by AVG, even with it automatically
downloading virus signature updates, I could never recommend it unless the
choice was AVG or nothing.
I'm not saying you are wrong or naive with your opinion. I am just saying,
I disagree.
| AVG is free for home use, but not for corporate use. Many
| corporations use it.
|
| I'm not trying to tell you that AVG is better, worse, or the same
| as Norton. I happen to use Norton myself, and despite the
| opinions of many other MVPs (and other) who I greatly respect, I
| continue to use it because it's always worked well for me.
|
|
| > So far, I've never had an infection on a PC with Norton and a
| > current
| > virus signature list.
|
|
| Nor have I.
|
|
| > I have with AVG.
|
|
| I've never used AVG, and can't comment on it.
|
| The experience of a single user, whether you or me, or even both
| of us taken together hardly counts. Statistics are meaningful
| only when you look at large numbers of users.
I agree with you on both the opinion of a single user and statistically. I
was only giving my personal opinion. You don't have to worry about
offending me. It takes quite a lot to do that.
| > At the corporation I work which has over 48,000 employees and
| > contractors working for it, the only viruses that ever get in
| > are
| > those that haven't been detected yet, and manage to pass
| > through
| > firewalls, intrusion detection, email filters, etc. These are
| > only
| > the most virulent viruses.
| >
| > I can't speak for every other virus scanner software and there
| > are
| > many, but can say I trust Norton far more than I do AVG.
|
|
| Your choice, of course. There are many other AVG users who
| disagree with you. In my opinion (admittedly hearsay--but from
| those whose opinions I trust), AVG does at least as good a job as
| Norton). If Symantec were to go out of business tomorrow, and I
| had to find another anti-virus product, AVG is one of those I
| would definitely consider.
|
| Again, however, I wasn't trying to tell you that AVG was better.
| Despite my using and liking Norton, I was merely commenting that
| your statement "I know of two people in my family alone who have
| gotten viruses on their machines even with AVG running on their
| machines" is not a good reason for the conclusion "Stick with
| Norton." Statistics based on two examples are meaningless.
|
| --
| Ken Blake - Microsoft MVP Windows: Shell/User
| Please reply to the newsgroup
This is where my opinion differs from yours and this seems to be because of
different experiences. I wouldn't choose AVG unless I had no other choice.
I would rather pay for better virus protection than use AVG for free. There
are several anti-virus products out there and I believe several better
choices than AVG.
I just don't think the hassle of cleaning an infected PC is worth the risk
of using any anti-virus software with a questionable reputation. Since I've
personally seen several viruses get by AVG, even with it automatically
downloading virus signature updates, I could never recommend it unless the
choice was AVG or nothing.
I'm not saying you are wrong or naive with your opinion. I am just saying,
I disagree.
