Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 6th Dec 2010 22:46 UTC, submitted by sawboss
Privacy, Security, Encryption It's no secret that I'm not a particular fan of antivirus software vendors. Other than the excellent Microsoft offering, I haven't yet seen a single antivirus program that doesn't suck the life out of computers, infesting every corner, making machines slow and full of annoying pop-ups. Still, a single license key for Avast! Pro being shared 774651 times? That's a bit harsh.
Thread beginning with comment 452431
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Totally Unnecessary
by metalf8801 on Tue 7th Dec 2010 05:36 UTC in reply to "Totally Unnecessary"
metalf8801
Member since:
2010-03-22

If people were told in 1995 they would need permanently running virus scanners crawling through all their files and memory to survive, they may have thrown out Windows early enough.



Why do say that? I mean what's changed sins 95? computers running Windows 95 needed anti virus software to.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: Totally Unnecessary
by lemur2 on Tue 7th Dec 2010 05:50 in reply to "RE: Totally Unnecessary"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

"If people were told in 1995 they would need permanently running virus scanners crawling through all their files and memory to survive, they may have thrown out Windows early enough.
Why do say that? I mean what's changed sins 95? computers running Windows 95 needed anti virus software to. "

What has changed since 1995 is that the majority of desktop computers now run some version of Windows. Even today Windows maintains some level of backward binary compatibility with Windows circa 1995. Many binary viruses from 1995 could still run under a bare, out-of-the-box-unprotected Windows installation today.

Prior to 1995 one was just as likely to find some other OS on a given desktop computer.

Of the two primary conditions in which to have a virus/malware problem (those being a. a near-monoculture of OS installations, and b. routine end-user-installation of inscrutable binary executables), only the latter of those conditions existed prior to 1995.

Edited 2010-12-07 05:52 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Totally Unnecessary
by gfolkert on Tue 7th Dec 2010 09:32 in reply to "RE[2]: Totally Unnecessary"
gfolkert Member since:
2008-12-15

Wait... when was Microsoft *first* convicted of OS tying to machines?

Go find that out please and re-assess your answer. Oh and also about the consent decree... and a few other things.

Reply Parent Score: 1

Flatland_Spider Member since:
2006-09-01

You missed the point where a networked computer is an insecure computer. The rise of the Internet and "always on broadband" has decreased security more then any other variable. Windows security practices don't help, but constant networking is the bigger problem.

Also, it was a mono-culture back then too. There were a few outlying alt OSs, but the show was run by Microsoft by then.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: Totally Unnecessary
by Flatland_Spider on Tue 7th Dec 2010 13:48 in reply to "RE: Totally Unnecessary"
Flatland_Spider Member since:
2006-09-01

We have 24x7 broadband Internet now, and in 95 we only had dial up access. (Leased lines were expensive, and ISDN was a rare unicorn.) Now, we download applications from the Internet, and then, software came from a retailer in a box.

You only really needed to scan floppies which had been shared, and new software if you were really obsessive. If you didn't access the Internet or load any software, there was no need to run an AV suite.

Reply Parent Score: 2