Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 17th Jul 2007 14:38 UTC, submitted by mikemuch
Windows "Way back in November 2006, when Windows Vista went from beta to RTM, Microsoft's Jim Allchin suggested that users might not need an antivirus program, thanks to the new OS's stronger security features. While the statement was subsequently clarified until it lost all its meaning, the question remains: Do Vista users really need an antivirus program running in the background at all times?"
Thread beginning with comment 256026
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Nice article
by baadger on Tue 17th Jul 2007 15:19 UTC in reply to "Nice article"
Member since:

Personally I'd rather fix computer systems of friends and family when they get hit by the odd piece of nasty annoying adware than constantly 'check up' on their PC because Norton Shitority Suite 2015 and all the other RAM and I/O hungry gunk they have installed is making it run like muck. And I'm sure I'd be doing it less frequently too.

I have a friend with a beautiful 1k Core2/XP/2GB system which I recently had to wipe and reinstall because it was blue screening, and just generally running worse doing desktop tasks than my old Pentium II. It saddens me to see someone spend so much money on a system, for me to build it, install all they need and to see it fly, only to see the same desktop 3 months later with 17 system tray icons and the whole thing running like shit. The last thing he needed was resident AV.

On the Window's platform, the boundaries between viruses, spy and adware and just bad bloaty software with system wide negative effects is smearing and AV doesn't help.

Reply Parent Score: 5