Switching Security Solutions

Ok you did and two GMA's (grand master analogist) on the forum pretty unique - I'm going for my Phd soon LOL!!

Yeah I know re the hanging on but it's the using more than one and constant swapping that gets to me.

rubyrubyroo said:

I bet it would drive me crazy too, but it's probibly the whole "getting paid by the quarter-hour to install each time they switch" syndrome that helps ease me through it!

Hum +1 mate I just don't understand it either unless one is an expert at spotting a bad app straight away and I reckon you would have to pretty darn good at that I suppose the triers will always be looking for that something extra - which they never will find. Bit like a dog chasing it's tail!

rubyrubyroo said:

ICit2lol said:

Bit like a dog chasing it's tail!

You cant stop can you!

Well the companies love the switching and going from free to pay constantly, due to unfounded fears of ....them?!

so thats just the business, I guess! You sound like you don't fall for "it" but almost every day theres a thread like this , and it's much the same!

(Sigh..) (...but Smile)

Nah!!

rubyrubyroo said:

...for instance I despise Norton, because in my experience, I've probably never seen a system being COMPLETELY clean of its remnants after installation. In fact I'll go one step further and say about 3-4 times (before I knew better) I tried uninstalling it through the included uninstaller or Windows uninstall app, and as I was uninstalling in the foreground, I saw 2 Norton Installation windows with the "now installing" and "Welcome to Norton" titles in the background with the progress bars moving twice as fast. Sure enough a new install was there when I was done asking for me to try a trial run!

Thanks,
Mike:)

You must be speaking of the Norton of old...

YES, Norton did have issues like that with older versions (2002-2006 era). It was also a HUGE resource PIG! Those of us "in the know" used the Norton Removal Tool to completely clean these systems. But many of the removal issues stemmed from end users upgrading versions year after year, without ever removing the previous versions.

Over the years Ive used many products on my personal machines: Avast, AVG, McAffee, MS Security Essentials, Norton, PC-cillian and others. I have supported PC's and Networks with nearly every brand over the last 20 years and I have seen most fail at simple tasks such as preventing malware infections.

I'm sorry but AVG and Avast are 2 of the worst offenders as far as being "protected" and still allowing infections in... In my experience! Granted some of that can be attributed to user error (not updating regularly), but I find less of these infections with the paid for versions. I truly believe that any FREE AV is inferior to a paid for AV product... especially if that company offers both. Where would you put your R&D $$$, the free or paid for app?

Unlike many competitors (McAffee), Norton has truly learned from their mistakes. The new Norton (2009-present) is a lean, mean, virus eating machine! I said it earlier, but Norton has been voted the best AV product for the last 3-4 years by most of the big PC magazines. <-- A title everyone wants! Most mags have Norton and Kaspersky at/near the top!

@Darryl Licht,

Funny how distrusting you seem to be with the evils of the internet (and rightly so), yet how trusting you are of the "Top Shelf" magazine(s)! Such a prestiges, coveted placing by the tests that you blindly trust, surely couldn't have their data skewed toward a company by other means. Oddly, the company that takes in the highest revenue was the winner! Lucky break I bet! I sure feel confident with that medal hanging around Norton's neck...

I do agree about how Norton has improved over the years, and the time period seems about right >2005/6. The virus protection is good, no real problems with that, although In my experience there is no noticeable difference in the infection rates of Norton and many of the free products other companies offer. (with the exception of a few including AVG, which used to be a far superior) Avast, Avira, MSE, etc. all have free versions which I believe to be equivalent in protection (although most free products are missing some features - ID protection, or a firewall, etc. - and if someone needs these, then they need the payed version, obviously!) For the average home user, windows firewall is sufficient, and they should be using better browsing practices if they cannot control their "ID", as these components can't protect them if they don't know anything about internet/id security.

As to your question where would I allocate my company's resources, I believe I would do the same as most companies undoubtedly do. I wouldn't separate a product and pay to establish two finely tuned separate applications, I'd make one, and lock out some features and required a key/serial to open the product to paying customers. I would constantly dangle the "Wonderfully More Effective Paid Version" in banners and grayed out buttons in the software (sounding familiar yet?) And if there was one pitfall I would avoid, it would be to let the FREE VERSION be anything short of the best I could make, because I would realize how much free advertising it would provide me with. And I would also be quite certain, if a free-version user was given less protection, and any type of infection bypassed the free software, I would never get a penny for that person, and possibly all those they talk to. If I lose a paid customer for a similar reason, it's due to the software in general having some flaw, a separate issue. The free-version customers who are happy soon start to wonder and rationalize the differences between the two, and come to the most realistic conclusion: "Just like with most anything, you get what you pay for." So they believe for such a small price ($30 - $50 per year usually) that the paid-version must be so much better than the free-version. So they upgrade and feel so much more protected. Why ever go "Back" to the free version at that point? Why did they leave in the first place? It's just the enticement of that greener grass.

We will have to agree to disagree, because I only recommend something tangible, like equal rates of infection on a computer I am placing my hands on. Even if I somehow trusted the source with 100% and was supplied with reproducible results, that I tested myself identically to the "study". If the computers I encounter do not follow the same trend, I simply will not advise someone based on anything other than experience (assuming one has a large enough sampling of customers computers). Some external factors must not have been accounted for. So maybe your clients are of some different "grouping" than mine. I really have no idea. If so, your point my be just as valid as mine. Aside from the magazine bias.

That's just how I run my show.




Sincerely,
Mike



(I can really see how useful these "which anti-virus software is the best one in the world?" threads can be!)