Anti-virus for Win 98

I'll reply to that just as soon as I find the time.... ;-)
--
Glen Ventura, MS MVP Shell/User, A+

"Gary S. Terhune" wrote in message
...
Just find me a round tuit, OK?


"glee" wrote in message
...
You may notice a little slowdown with a system that old, particularly when it is
updating. I had it on a K6-2 333MHz with 128MB RAM and I think anything much
slower than that might show some lag. Let me know how it runs on that system,
will you?


"Gary S. Terhune" wrote in message
...
Hmmm... I'll try it on my P55-233 w/ 96MB RAM. It's got eTrust on it right now,
Win98SE...


"glee" wrote in message
...
Yep, that's what I use....Avast free edition....in both 98SE and XP. It
does need a reasonably fast system, more so than AVG, but it has a better
detection rate and many more updates.


"Gary S. Terhune" wrote in message
...
Joy,

Why not switch to Avast!? Quite good, gets better ratings than AVG with
regard to detection, easy to use, and is free for personal use.


"Joy" wrote in message
...
My husband has Win 98 and had AVG (free) anti-virus in it, but had the
old
(7.1) version. We've been trying to download their current version
(7.5)
and twice it got almost finished (takes a LONG time, he has dial-up) and
there was a problem and it quit. Does anyone know if perhaps that
version
of AVG isn't compatible with Win 98? Thanks for any help or
suggestions

Or maybe 1998, or even earlier.

Gary S. Terhune wrote:
I have had bad experiences with 2002, also. Go back to 2000, maybe...

--
Gary S. Terhune
MS-MVP Shell/User
www.grystmill.com

"98 Guy" wrote in message ...
Daave wrote:


Hold off installing any Norton program untill after ...

Agreed.

How many people here have any recent experience with NAV 2002 and
Win-98?

You're all talking out of your hat, and you're all talking about more
recent versions of NAV that I agree are horrible.

(Actually, with my experience, I'll allow an exception for the
Symantec corporate enterprise version.)

Yes, I have some win-98 systems that run Symantec corporate (version 8
I think, maybe 9). That product has no expiry date, but otherwise I
see little difference (from a performance or resource-usage point of
view) vs NAV 2002.

Yup. The OLD Norton stuff was really great, back in the days of DOS, Win
3.1, Win95, and perhaps up to, and through, the (so-called) "era" of
Win98/SE)

Gary S. Terhune wrote:
I should add that it was nothing to do with XP and everything to do with
Norton himself leaving the scene. They turned it into a gorilla sitting on
your shoulder to swat flies.

--
Gary S. Terhune
MS-MVP Shell/User
www.grystmill.com

"Gary S. Terhune" wrote in message
...
I have had bad experiences with 2002, also. Go back to 2000, maybe...

--
Gary S. Terhune
MS-MVP Shell/User
www.grystmill.com

"98 Guy" wrote in message ...
Daave wrote:


Hold off installing any Norton program untill after ...

Agreed.

How many people here have any recent experience with NAV 2002 and
Win-98?

You're all talking out of your hat, and you're all talking about more
recent versions of NAV that I agree are horrible.

(Actually, with my experience, I'll allow an exception for the
Symantec corporate enterprise version.)

Yes, I have some win-98 systems that run Symantec corporate (version 8
I think, maybe 9). That product has no expiry date, but otherwise I
see little difference (from a performance or resource-usage point of
view) vs NAV 2002.

I consider Symantec the ultimate Millennium Bug.

--
Gary S. Terhune
MS-MVP Shell/User
www.grystmill.com

"Bill in Co." wrote in message
...
Yup. The OLD Norton stuff was really great, back in the days of DOS,
Win
3.1, Win95, and perhaps up to, and through, the (so-called) "era" of
Win98/SE)

Gary S. Terhune wrote:
I should add that it was nothing to do with XP and everything to do with
Norton himself leaving the scene. They turned it into a gorilla sitting
on
your shoulder to swat flies.

--
Gary S. Terhune
MS-MVP Shell/User
www.grystmill.com

"Gary S. Terhune" wrote in message
...
I have had bad experiences with 2002, also. Go back to 2000, maybe...

--
Gary S. Terhune
MS-MVP Shell/User
www.grystmill.com

"98 Guy" wrote in message ...
Daave wrote:


Hold off installing any Norton program untill after ...

Agreed.

How many people here have any recent experience with NAV 2002 and
Win-98?

You're all talking out of your hat, and you're all talking about more
recent versions of NAV that I agree are horrible.

(Actually, with my experience, I'll allow an exception for the
Symantec corporate enterprise version.)

Yes, I have some win-98 systems that run Symantec corporate (version 8
I think, maybe 9). That product has no expiry date, but otherwise I
see little difference (from a performance or resource-usage point of
view) vs NAV 2002.

"98 Guy" wrote in message ...
philo wrote:

*Very bad advice*

NAV (& McAffee) are very poor products

don't even consider it!!!!

Need I say more?

What version of NAV do you have direct and recent experience with
philo?

Please tell us.


For the past year or so I get in for repair at least one machine a month
that has either Norton or McAffee...
and a recently updated version at that.

One recent example was a machine that I scanned...and Norton...after running
for several hours
found and removed about 6 virii. The machine still ran horribly.

I uninstalled Norton and put on AVG 7.5 free
After a scan of less than an hour...it found 6 or 8 more virii...
removed them and the machine works A1 !

Probably just removing Norton did a lot to speed things up !

A machine a repair two months ago had two huge folder filled with infected
"games"...
Norton missed them entirely!

Last week I fixed another machine that had Norton on it.
The machine was just a p-III 450 mhz and after the latest Norton update...
Microsoft Word no longer opened!
Uninstalled Norton and put on AVG...the machine works fine.

Norton and McAfee may work better on a very high end machine...
but still, they are some of the prime targets for the evil folks who write
the virii.

I have personally been using AVG free for maybe five years or so and have
never one even had a hint of a problem

philo wrote:

What version of NAV do you have direct and recent experience
with philo?

For the past year or so I get in for repair at least one machine
a month that has either Norton or McAffee...
and a recently updated version at that.

What version of NAV?

One recent example was a machine that I scanned...and Norton...
after running for several hours found and removed about 6 virii.

What version of NAV?

The machine still ran horribly.

Was NAV virus defn's updated?

I uninstalled Norton and put on AVG 7.5 free. After a scan
of less than an hour...it found 6 or 8 more virii...
removed them and the machine works A1 !

Comparing the hit or detection rates of various AV software is one
thing.

But to blame NAV for causing the machine to perform poorly because it
still had malware on it is stupid.

Probably just removing Norton did a lot to speed things up!

Again, what version of NAV?

A machine a repair two months ago had two huge folder filled
with infected "games"...
Norton missed them entirely!

What OS are we talking about, and was the NAV in question fully up to
date?

Last week I fixed another machine that had Norton on it.

What version of NAV?

Norton and McAfee may work better on a very high end machine...
but still, they are some of the prime targets for the evil folks
who write the virii.

Viruses do not "target" AV software or are written specifically to
exploit specific AV software.

Viruses are written to target specific vulnerabilities in Operating
Systems and application software.

Viruses do, or will, attempt to shut down any AV software running on a
system in addition to performing the infection.

I have personally been using AVG free for maybe five years or
so and have never one even had a hint of a problem

I have been using NAV 2002 on 8 Win-98se systems and 2 Win-NT servers
in a small-office network environment for 5 years and have experienced
NO operational or functional problems or degradation in performance on
those systems because of the presence of NAV 2002.

portions snipped

What version of NAV?

The machine still ran horribly.

Was NAV virus defn's updated?

I uninstalled Norton and put on AVG 7.5 free. After a scan
of less than an hour...it found 6 or 8 more virii...
removed them and the machine works A1 !

Comparing the hit or detection rates of various AV software is one
thing.

But to blame NAV for causing the machine to perform poorly because it
still had malware on it is stupid.

Probably just removing Norton did a lot to speed things up!

Again, what version of NAV?

A machine a repair two months ago had two huge folder filled
with infected "games"...
Norton missed them entirely!

What OS are we talking about, and was the NAV in question fully up to
date?

Last week I fixed another machine that had Norton on it.

What version of NAV?

Norton and McAfee may work better on a very high end machine...
but still, they are some of the prime targets for the evil folks
who write the virii.

Viruses do not "target" AV software or are written specifically to
exploit specific AV software.

Viruses are written to target specific vulnerabilities in Operating
Systems and application software.

Viruses do, or will, attempt to shut down any AV software running on a
system in addition to performing the infection.

I have personally been using AVG free for maybe five years or
so and have never one even had a hint of a problem

I have been using NAV 2002 on 8 Win-98se systems and 2 Win-NT servers
in a small-office network environment for 5 years and have experienced
NO operational or functional problems or degradation in performance on
those systems because of the presence of NAV 2002.


As I mentioned...the machines had a recently updated version of Norton.
If the AV product had been working...the machine probably should not have
been infected in the first place...
though of course I'm sure the users are not too savvy.

And yes...I have seen some malware actually target and take out/disable AV
software...
especially vulnerable are the "big name" AV products.

If Norton works for you that's great...

philo wrote:

I have been using NAV 2002 on 8 Win-98se systems and 2 Win-NT
servers in a small-office network environment for 5 years and
have experienced NO operational or functional problems or
degradation in performance on those systems because of the
presence of NAV 2002.

As I mentioned...the machines had a recently updated version
of Norton.

And you continue to NOT mention which version of Norton.

Why don't you answer that question?

Which version of NAV are you talking about?

If the AV product had been working...the machine probably
should not have been infected in the first place...

I've got a news flash for you.

There are a few THOUSAND new pieces of malware entering general
circulation EACH MONTH.

Practically ALL AV software DOES NOT DETECT many new malware items for
the first day, or even week, that the new malware enters circulation.

Again, we are talking about 2 different things:

1) How good is NAV at detecting malware (both old and new malware).

2) How much of a drain is NAV 2002 on Win-98 system resources.

I say that NAV is no better or no worse than any other AV program,
with the possible exception that Kaspersky is probably the best.

I say that for a FREE AV solution for Win-98 that does not impact
system resources or performance, that NAV 2001 and NAV 2002 meets that
criteria.

"98 Guy" wrote in message ...
philo wrote:

I have been using NAV 2002 on 8 Win-98se systems and 2 Win-NT
servers in a small-office network environment for 5 years and
have experienced NO operational or functional problems or
degradation in performance on those systems because of the
presence of NAV 2002.

As I mentioned...the machines had a recently updated version
of Norton.

And you continue to NOT mention which version of Norton.

Why don't you answer that question?

Which version of NAV are you talking about?

If the AV product had been working...the machine probably
should not have been infected in the first place...

I've got a news flash for you.

There are a few THOUSAND new pieces of malware entering general
circulation EACH MONTH.

Practically ALL AV software DOES NOT DETECT many new malware items for
the first day, or even week, that the new malware enters circulation.

Again, we are talking about 2 different things:

1) How good is NAV at detecting malware (both old and new malware).

2) How much of a drain is NAV 2002 on Win-98 system resources.

I say that NAV is no better or no worse than any other AV program,
with the possible exception that Kaspersky is probably the best.

I say that for a FREE AV solution for Win-98 that does not impact
system resources or performance, that NAV 2001 and NAV 2002 meets that
criteria.

Any version of SYMANTEC after 2003 should be removed, scrapped, etc.

Galen

"98 Guy" wrote in message ...
philo wrote:

I have been using NAV 2002 on 8 Win-98se systems and 2 Win-NT
servers in a small-office network environment for 5 years and
have experienced NO operational or functional problems or
degradation in performance on those systems because of the
presence of NAV 2002.

As I mentioned...the machines had a recently updated version
of Norton.

And you continue to NOT mention which version of Norton.

Why don't you answer that question?

Which version of NAV are you talking about?



To answer your question...the machines had different versions of Norton on
them...
from present date to several years old...I cannot say for sure whether or
whether not they had
the NAV 2002 product...but that seems a moot point as I'd think it would be
a bit difficult to
purchase the 2002 product today