Symantec vs. AVG

G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

Dell Dim 2400 with XP Home

I currently have AVG. We were just notified at work that we are authorized
to use Symantec AntiVirus free-of-charge on our home computers.

So, which is better?? Could I keep BOTH on?

MB
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

Use one or the other, but not both. I would assume that the Symantec AntiVirus
is a corporate version which requires virus updates to be done via the corporate
server, if I recall correctly. No big deal here, just a heads-up on how it
works. One must hope that Symantec provides a higher level of AV support for
the bucks charged to a corporate licensee... Ben Myers

On , "MB_" <mel@prodigy.invalid.net> wrote:

>NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2005 09:42:59 MST
>Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2005 11:32:18 -0500
>Xref: Hurricane-Charley alt.sys.pc-clone.dell:25361
>
>Dell Dim 2400 with XP Home
>
>I currently have AVG. We were just notified at work that we are authorized
>to use Symantec AntiVirus free-of-charge on our home computers.
>
>So, which is better?? Could I keep BOTH on?
>
>MB
>
>
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

In article <41dad4d8.497722@nntp.charter.net>, ben_myers_spam_me_not @
charter.net (Ben Myers) says...
> Use one or the other, but not both. I would assume that the Symantec AntiVirus
> is a corporate version which requires virus updates to be done via the corporate
> server, if I recall correctly. No big deal here, just a heads-up on how it
> works. One must hope that Symantec provides a higher level of AV support for
> the bucks charged to a corporate licensee... Ben Myers
>
<Snip>

I run Symantec Corporate v9.x and you can do a live update if the
corporate administrator does not lock that feature. I would guess that
they would just give you a disk to take home and install. The corporate
version doesn't require the use of a key as well. I also use AVG Pro
and it does not appear to be as resourse intensive as Norton.

Funny that you mention the fact not to run both. I have had a PC since
1985 and back when AV first started they recommended to run a couple of
them due to the fact that one would catch some that the other wouldn't
and vice versa.

My how times have changed.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

After having Symantec/Norton drive me insane on my previous Dell, I
made sure to NOT install it on my current home Dell.

Resource intensive and then it would not let me delete it. Currently
run Symantec corporate at the office where I admit it seems to work
fine. But at home I use AVAST.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

AV software sometimes gets in the way of other activities, especially software
installs. It does not take a great leap of imagination to think of one AV
package complicating life for another, not to mention the life of the computer
owner... Ben Myers

On Tue, 4 Jan 2005 13:54:00 -0500, Robin Brumfield <rbrumfield@charter.net>
wrote:

>In article <41dad4d8.497722@nntp.charter.net>, ben_myers_spam_me_not @
>charter.net (Ben Myers) says...
>> Use one or the other, but not both. I would assume that the Symantec AntiVirus
>> is a corporate version which requires virus updates to be done via the corporate
>> server, if I recall correctly. No big deal here, just a heads-up on how it
>> works. One must hope that Symantec provides a higher level of AV support for
>> the bucks charged to a corporate licensee... Ben Myers
>>
><Snip>
>
>I run Symantec Corporate v9.x and you can do a live update if the
>corporate administrator does not lock that feature. I would guess that
>they would just give you a disk to take home and install. The corporate
>version doesn't require the use of a key as well. I also use AVG Pro
>and it does not appear to be as resourse intensive as Norton.
>
>Funny that you mention the fact not to run both. I have had a PC since
>1985 and back when AV first started they recommended to run a couple of
>them due to the fact that one would catch some that the other wouldn't
>and vice versa.
>
>My how times have changed.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

Ben et. al:

Well, having just gotten a backdoor.Trojan despite what I thought was "safe
hex," I'm a little leery of things now.

As I understand it, from work they will lend me a CD and I can install it on
my home computer. I assume this means I can get the updates.

Question: Is Symantec AV the same as Norton AV??? I know that Norton causes
resource problems in a lot of situations.

My thinking is to keep AVG active (eg: continually monitoring emails, etc.)
but I can run AVG and Symantec to do my scans. Is that being overly
cautious? Or worse, is that kind of set-up asking for trouble (ie: would one
AV interfere with the other under those circumstances)?

Mel



<ben_myers_spam_me_not @ charter.net (Ben Myers)> wrote in message
news:41daf3bb.8405290@nntp.charter.net...
> AV software sometimes gets in the way of other activities, especially
> software
> installs. It does not take a great leap of imagination to think of one AV
> package complicating life for another, not to mention the life of the
> computer
> owner... Ben Myers
>
> On Tue, 4 Jan 2005 13:54:00 -0500, Robin Brumfield
> <rbrumfield@charter.net>
> wrote:
>
>>In article <41dad4d8.497722@nntp.charter.net>, ben_myers_spam_me_not @
>>charter.net (Ben Myers) says...
>>> Use one or the other, but not both. I would assume that the Symantec
>>> AntiVirus
>>> is a corporate version which requires virus updates to be done via the
>>> corporate
>>> server, if I recall correctly. No big deal here, just a heads-up on how
>>> it
>>> works. One must hope that Symantec provides a higher level of AV
>>> support for
>>> the bucks charged to a corporate licensee... Ben Myers
>>>
>><Snip>
>>
>>I run Symantec Corporate v9.x and you can do a live update if the
>>corporate administrator does not lock that feature. I would guess that
>>they would just give you a disk to take home and install. The corporate
>>version doesn't require the use of a key as well. I also use AVG Pro
>>and it does not appear to be as resourse intensive as Norton.
>>
>>Funny that you mention the fact not to run both. I have had a PC since
>>1985 and back when AV first started they recommended to run a couple of
>>them due to the fact that one would catch some that the other wouldn't
>>and vice versa.
>>
>>My how times have changed.
>
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

In article <nIzCd.53764$BP6.50848@fe06.lga>, mel@prodigy.invalid.net
says...
> Dell Dim 2400 with XP Home
>
> I currently have AVG. We were just notified at work that we are authorized
> to use Symantec AntiVirus free-of-charge on our home computers.
>
> So, which is better?? Could I keep BOTH on?

I had been a VERY LOYAL Norton Anti-Virus user for years and would swear
by it. But I recently ran into a problem that forced me to dump it (a
problem that effects less than 1% of users).

The SYM EVENT driver can randomly reboot your computer if you have more
than 1 gigabyte of system memory and the software program you are
running is allocating memory blocks larger than 1 gigabyte.

I do a LOT of video encoding and I bought a program called DVD Lab to
create home DVDs. I have 4 gigabytes of RAM in my computer and DVD Lab
was using as much as it could to speed up processing. And occasionally
the system would reboot. It drove me nuts.

The blue screen notes indicated that it was a hardware problem, but
after a lot of googling, I tracked it down to this bizarre problem with
SYM EVENT in NAV. I uninstalled NAV and the problem went away.

I'm now using AVG. I'm not as happy with AVG (mostly because I'm not
used to it, I suspect), but at least my computer doesn't reboot.

If and when Symantec fixes the problem with SYM EVENT, I plan to go
back.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

On Tue, 4 Jan 2005 13:54:00 -0500, in
<MPG.1c44b0508fbacb5c989680@News.individual.net>, Robin Brumfield
<rbrumfield@charter.net> wrote:

>In article <41dad4d8.497722@nntp.charter.net>, ben_myers_spam_me_not @
>charter.net (Ben Myers) says...
>> Use one or the other, but not both. I would assume that the Symantec AntiVirus
>> is a corporate version which requires virus updates to be done via the corporate
>> server, if I recall correctly. No big deal here, just a heads-up on how it
>> works. One must hope that Symantec provides a higher level of AV support for
>> the bucks charged to a corporate licensee... Ben Myers
>>
><Snip>
>
>I run Symantec Corporate v9.x and you can do a live update if the
>corporate administrator does not lock that feature. I would guess that
>they would just give you a disk to take home and install. The corporate
>version doesn't require the use of a key as well. I also use AVG Pro
>and it does not appear to be as resourse intensive as Norton.
>
>Funny that you mention the fact not to run both. I have had a PC since
>1985 and back when AV first started they recommended to run a couple of
>them due to the fact that one would catch some that the other wouldn't
>and vice versa.
>
>My how times have changed.

Yes... but as I recall, back in 1985 AV programs weren't run
constantly in the background.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

If you are a member of the University of Maine system than we are offering
you Symantic Anti Virus Corp. Edition which is very very effective. And no
you don't have to get your updates from our servers. Only on campus people
have to do that. If you live on campus we push out updates twice per day.
If you are off campus and install the product you would get your updates by
using the live update feature.


<ben_myers_spam_me_not @ charter.net (Ben Myers)> wrote in message
news:41dad4d8.497722@nntp.charter.net...
> Use one or the other, but not both. I would assume that the Symantec
> AntiVirus
> is a corporate version which requires virus updates to be done via the
> corporate
> server, if I recall correctly. No big deal here, just a heads-up on how
> it
> works. One must hope that Symantec provides a higher level of AV support
> for
> the bucks charged to a corporate licensee... Ben Myers
>
> On , "MB_" <mel@prodigy.invalid.net> wrote:
>
>>NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2005 09:42:59 MST
>>Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2005 11:32:18 -0500
>>Xref: Hurricane-Charley alt.sys.pc-clone.dell:25361
>>
>>Dell Dim 2400 with XP Home
>>
>>I currently have AVG. We were just notified at work that we are authorized
>>to use Symantec AntiVirus free-of-charge on our home computers.
>>
>>So, which is better?? Could I keep BOTH on?
>>
>>MB
>>
>>
>
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

In article <3wFCd.53885$zM2.28617@fe06.lga>, mel@prodigy.invalid.net
says...
> Ben et. al:
>
> Well, having just gotten a backdoor.Trojan despite what I thought was "safe
> hex," I'm a little leery of things now.
>
> As I understand it, from work they will lend me a CD and I can install it on
> my home computer. I assume this means I can get the updates.
>
> Question: Is Symantec AV the same as Norton AV??? I know that Norton causes
> resource problems in a lot of situations.
>
> My thinking is to keep AVG active (eg: continually monitoring emails, etc.)
> but I can run AVG and Symantec to do my scans. Is that being overly
> cautious? Or worse, is that kind of set-up asking for trouble (ie: would one
> AV interfere with the other under those circumstances)?
>
> Mel
>


Yes Symantec acquired Norton several years ago and they are the same
product now as far as the AV software goes. You should be able to get
the updates. I know that I can with my installation. As Ben Myers noted
in another post, the installation of AVG and Norton may cause you alot
of grief. It has been many years since I saw a recommendation to run
duplicate AV software. If you have Norton Ghost or some similar disk
image software and an external hard drive, you could ghost your drive
and try it. If it pukes just lay your image back like it was and go
with one or the other. I have Norton at work, AVG on one laptop and F-
Prot, supplied by Charter cable, on the other laptop and have never had
a virus to date (Knock on wood;-). I always practice safe computing
though...hate the web and generally never visit web sites unless doing
research at specific vendors of hardware/software; never open an email
attachment from unknown sources; run spam protection and just dump those
emails; etc.; etc.

See this hobby used to be fun when the Internet and computers were new
but now, they both are a lot of work to keep from getting clobbered.
When I retire, I may get all my assets converted to cash and stuff it
under a mattress and then retreat from the world of technology...:))
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

In article <l3nmt01644c1mch8r8tptictboi9dumu5u@4ax.com>, me7@privacy.net
says...
> On Tue, 4 Jan 2005 13:54:00 -0500, in
> <MPG.1c44b0508fbacb5c989680@News.individual.net>, Robin Brumfield
> <rbrumfield@charter.net> wrote:
>
> >In article <41dad4d8.497722@nntp.charter.net>, ben_myers_spam_me_not @
> >charter.net (Ben Myers) says...
> >> Use one or the other, but not both. I would assume that the Symantec AntiVirus
> >> is a corporate version which requires virus updates to be done via the corporate
> >> server, if I recall correctly. No big deal here, just a heads-up on how it
> >> works. One must hope that Symantec provides a higher level of AV support for
> >> the bucks charged to a corporate licensee... Ben Myers
> >>
> ><Snip>
> >
> >I run Symantec Corporate v9.x and you can do a live update if the
> >corporate administrator does not lock that feature. I would guess that
> >they would just give you a disk to take home and install. The corporate
> >version doesn't require the use of a key as well. I also use AVG Pro
> >and it does not appear to be as resourse intensive as Norton.
> >
> >Funny that you mention the fact not to run both. I have had a PC since
> >1985 and back when AV first started they recommended to run a couple of
> >them due to the fact that one would catch some that the other wouldn't
> >and vice versa.
> >
> >My how times have changed.
>
> Yes... but as I recall, back in 1985 AV programs weren't run
> constantly in the background.
>

Those were the DOS days in 1985 and AV wasn't even a happening thing
until about 1994 or so when Windows 3.x first hit the market. I never
dabbled with Windows 1.x/2.x since it was such an unstable system. I
used OS/2 during the time between Windows 1.x/2.x and Windows 3.x.

Anyone remember Mosaic?
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

The forerunner of Netscape wasn't it.

"Robin Brumfield" <rbrumfield@charter.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c460ed193ac383c989682@News.individual.net...

snipped

> Anyone remember Mosaic?
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

Robin Brumfield <rbrumfield@charter.net> wrote:


>Anyone remember Mosaic?

IE -> Help -> About
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

In article <MPG.1c460d75b5061ac7989681@News.individual.net>, Robin Brumfield <rbrumfield@charter.net> wrote:
>In article <3wFCd.53885$zM2.28617@fe06.lga>, mel@prodigy.invalid.net
>says...
>> Ben et. al:
>> Well, having just gotten a backdoor.Trojan despite what I thought was "safe
>> hex," I'm a little leery of things now.
>>
>> As I understand it, from work they will lend me a CD and I can install it on
>> my home computer. I assume this means I can get the updates.
>>
>> Question: Is Symantec AV the same as Norton AV??? I know that Norton causes
>> resource problems in a lot of situations.
>>
>> My thinking is to keep AVG active (eg: continually monitoring emails, etc.)
>> but I can run AVG and Symantec to do my scans. Is that being overly
>> cautious? Or worse, is that kind of set-up asking for trouble (ie: would one
>> AV interfere with the other under those circumstances)?
>
>Yes Symantec acquired Norton several years ago and they are the same
>product now as far as the AV software goes. You should be able to get
>the updates. I know that I can with my installation. As Ben Myers noted
>in another post, the installation of AVG and Norton may cause you alot
>of grief. It has been many years since I saw a recommendation to run
>duplicate AV software. If you have Norton Ghost or some similar disk
>image software and an external hard drive, you could ghost your drive
>and try it. If it pukes just lay your image back like it was and go
>with one or the other. I have Norton at work, AVG on one laptop and F-
>Prot, supplied by Charter cable, on the other laptop and have never had
>a virus to date (Knock on wood;-). I always practice safe computing
>though...hate the web and generally never visit web sites unless doing
>research at specific vendors of hardware/software; never open an email
>attachment from unknown sources; run spam protection and just dump those
>emails; etc.; etc.
>
>See this hobby used to be fun when the Internet and computers were new
>but now, they both are a lot of work to keep from getting clobbered.
>When I retire, I may get all my assets converted to cash and stuff it
>under a mattress and then retreat from the world of technology...:))

"But you can't hide it under the bed because that's where all the
commos are." ;-)

[Stolen without proper acknowledgement from former Oz socialist PM Bob
Hawke, or was it Paul Keating?]

Cheers, Phred.

--
ppnerkDELETE@THISyahoo.com.INVALID
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

In article <MPG.1c460ed193ac383c989682@News.individual.net>,
Robin Brumfield <rbrumfield@charter.net> wrote:
[snipped previous thread]
>
>Those were the DOS days in 1985 and AV wasn't even a happening thing
>until about 1994 or so when Windows 3.x first hit the market. I never
>dabbled with Windows 1.x/2.x since it was such an unstable system. I
>used OS/2 during the time between Windows 1.x/2.x and Windows 3.x.
>
>Anyone remember Mosaic?

I've still got a copy on floppy somewhere about the place.

But, of course, I'm currently using the modern incarnation --
Microsoft Internet Explorer 6.0 which is
"Based on NCSA Mosaic. NCSA Mosaic(TM); was developed at the National
Center for Supercomputing Applications at the University of Illinois
at Urbana-Champaign."
as it says in Help/About...

Cheers, Phred.

--
ppnerkDELETE@THISyahoo.com.INVALID
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

MB_ <mel@prodigy.invalid.net> wrote:
> Dell Dim 2400 with XP Home

> I currently have AVG. We were just notified at work that we are authorized
> to use Symantec AntiVirus free-of-charge on our home computers.

> So, which is better?? Could I keep BOTH on?

Don't run both.

Use AVG. Use Avast. Use FSecure. Use *ANYTHING* except Norton or McAfee.

Oh, the horror stories I could tell you about Norton... Symantec seems to
be on a mission to make Microsoft look like the paragon of quality
software.

Avoid Symantec. Their stuff doesn't work, but they'll happily charge you
a subscription anyways.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

We use Symantic Anti Virus Corp. edition on more than 10,000 machines across
our enterprise.
The clients works exceptionally well with no discernible overhead.

I would recommend this product to anyone.

Now the standalone non corp. editions may have problems with the
subscription services, I will acknowledge that.
Maybe its the differance of an enterprize paying $60,000 to license a
product verses the poor smuck who has to deal
with the 29.95 home version, which I find to be very differant.



"Doug Jacobs" <djacobs@shell.rawbw.com> wrote in message
news:10tr4oen23c3n7c@corp.supernews.com...
> MB_ <mel@prodigy.invalid.net> wrote:
>> Dell Dim 2400 with XP Home
>
>> I currently have AVG. We were just notified at work that we are
>> authorized
>> to use Symantec AntiVirus free-of-charge on our home computers.
>
>> So, which is better?? Could I keep BOTH on?
>
> Don't run both.
>
> Use AVG. Use Avast. Use FSecure. Use *ANYTHING* except Norton or
> McAfee.
>
> Oh, the horror stories I could tell you about Norton... Symantec seems to
> be on a mission to make Microsoft look like the paragon of quality
> software.
>
> Avoid Symantec. Their stuff doesn't work, but they'll happily charge you
> a subscription anyways.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 19:35:42 -0000, Doug Jacobs
<djacobs@shell.rawbw.com> wrote:

>MB_ <mel@prodigy.invalid.net> wrote:
>> Dell Dim 2400 with XP Home
>
>> I currently have AVG. We were just notified at work that we are authorized
>> to use Symantec AntiVirus free-of-charge on our home computers.
>
>> So, which is better?? Could I keep BOTH on?
>
>Don't run both.
>
>Use AVG. Use Avast. Use FSecure. Use *ANYTHING* except Norton or McAfee.
>
>Oh, the horror stories I could tell you about Norton... Symantec seems to
>be on a mission to make Microsoft look like the paragon of quality
>software.
>
>Avoid Symantec. Their stuff doesn't work, but they'll happily charge you
>a subscription anyways.

My first Dell ( several years ago) came with McAfee. It kept
crashing. Saw some newsgroup traffic about this being caused by
McAfee. I removed it and it fixed the problem. Bought Nortons which
worked reasonably well, except for their AntiFreeze never unfroze
anything.

Just got a new 8400 a few weeks ago. Because of horrid reviews of
both Nortons & McAfee I ordered it with neither 'free' AV software.
It came with McAfee anyway. I'm sending out a number of similar
emails and it flags them as possibly being generated by a worm.
That's nice, but I can't turn that 'feature' off. The Configure
VirusScan Options selection doesn't work - just gives me an error
message. McAfee has been no help.

Looking for something better.

(Fortunately my email comes thru Earthlink dialup and the AV on their
server is catching everything. Couldn't be more happy about that.)
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

Let me suggest something else based on hard experience. Before installing
another AV product, bend over backwards to make doubly sure that the system is
not infested with spyware, adware, or other malware. Same principle applies
when updating Windows, especially XP SP2... Ben Myers

On Tue, 04 Jan 2005 19:54:52 GMT, ben_myers_spam_me_not @ charter.net (Ben
Myers) wrote:

>AV software sometimes gets in the way of other activities, especially software
>installs. It does not take a great leap of imagination to think of one AV
>package complicating life for another, not to mention the life of the computer
>owner... Ben Myers
>
>On Tue, 4 Jan 2005 13:54:00 -0500, Robin Brumfield <rbrumfield@charter.net>
>wrote:
>
>>In article <41dad4d8.497722@nntp.charter.net>, ben_myers_spam_me_not @
>>charter.net (Ben Myers) says...
>>> Use one or the other, but not both. I would assume that the Symantec AntiVirus
>>> is a corporate version which requires virus updates to be done via the corporate
>>> server, if I recall correctly. No big deal here, just a heads-up on how it
>>> works. One must hope that Symantec provides a higher level of AV support for
>>> the bucks charged to a corporate licensee... Ben Myers
>>>
>><Snip>
>>
>>I run Symantec Corporate v9.x and you can do a live update if the
>>corporate administrator does not lock that feature. I would guess that
>>they would just give you a disk to take home and install. The corporate
>>version doesn't require the use of a key as well. I also use AVG Pro
>>and it does not appear to be as resourse intensive as Norton.
>>
>>Funny that you mention the fact not to run both. I have had a PC since
>>1985 and back when AV first started they recommended to run a couple of
>>them due to the fact that one would catch some that the other wouldn't
>>and vice versa.
>>
>>My how times have changed.
>
 

sohaib38

Distinguished
Jun 11, 2009
25
0
18,530
I have been using AVG since two years and I have no complains regarding it. Some days before I was using ESET NOD32 in my laptop which was only detecting the threat but not deleting them now I am using AVG and my laptop is as fast as it was in the beginnig. So I recommend AVG
 

N8eb

Distinguished
Sep 6, 2009
8
0
18,510
I had been using Norton for years, but kept getting a virus or two each year. When I bought a new Dell it came with the 90 day free McAfee, and I then paid for a year's subscription. About 6 months later a virus got through and I had to do the old reformat and reinstall of Windows from scratch.

For 4 years now have been using Avast, and nothing has gotten through. Of course using a good firewall and anti-spyware programs, but the point is I would never pay for Norton or McAfee again!

 
My recommendation would be for Malwarebytes and Asquared. They are both free and work great. I have Norton 360 (symantic) as well. The internet security is nice, but not worth the price. I won't be renewing my subscription.
 

Major7up

Distinguished
Aug 17, 2009
446
0
18,780
There are a lot of competing Av and security products out there but there is absolutely no replacement for smart computing. I do think that most people need to be running something and what that is depends greatly on intended use and where they are using it. Generally speaking, I prefer Vipre because it is far less obtrusive than Symantec or even AVG. Coupled with good computing habits, I don't think most would need more. I generally dislike both Symantec and McAfee products being that they tend to be resource hogs but they do a good job keeping the computer clean most of the time. I suggest only one product running/installed at a time and add to that good computer practices and you'd be just fine.
 

rockyjohn

Distinguished


So why resurrect a four year old thread and comment on it?
And why in the Dell forum? I am sure you can find this debate already covered ad nausem in the Security Software forum.
 

Major7up

Distinguished
Aug 17, 2009
446
0
18,780

I initially wondered that myself but then I realized that this is still an important question and it still has as much value today as it did when originally posted.