Confusion Kaspersky requirements

  • Thread starter Thread starter raymond79
  • Start date Start date
R

raymond79

Kaspersky's home page says the later versions requirements include
Internet Explorer 5.5.

Forum posters say ver 5 and 6 will run without it; if that's true why
does the home page list Explorer 5.5 as required? Is it or isn't it?
 
Kaspersky's home page says the later versions requirements include
Internet Explorer 5.5.

Forum posters say ver 5 and 6 will run without it; if that's true why
does the home page list Explorer 5.5 as required? Is it or isn't it?
Click to expand...

Only a Kaspersky Lab tech representative could give you a "straight
from the horse's mouth" answer, so a Beta 6 forum would be the
place to ask.

I wonder why you ask? I recently went through the Windows Update
process ... the sp4, rollup, and all critical patches for a fresh
install of Win 2K ... and MS wouldn't proceed until IE6 sp1 was
first installed. IE6 and keeping up with the latest security patches
go hand in hand. So would any user be concerned with such a question
as you've asked? Simply install IE6 and be done with it.

Seems to me the only users who might question such a thing would be
Win 9X users who aren't bothering to upgrade IE ... which is not a
wise thing to do. Eradicating IE on '98 is possible without severely
damaging the OS. Is that where you're coming from? Or what?

Art
http://home.epix.net/~artnpeg
 
Its really quite simple ... IE6 has a quite noticeable performance impact on
certain computers.
SP4 causes BSODs in some computers.

This particular 6 1/2 year old computer happily runs Win2K/SP3 with IE 5.01.
Both of the above conditions apply.

I have loaded a fresh install of Win2K/SP1 with no additional software other
than the chipset drivers (I'll refer to this as "The Base") . Upgrading The
Base to IE 5.5 or 6 causes a noticeable slowdown in performance. Upgrading
The Base to SP3 (I've always skipped SP2) goes smoothly and there are no
performance issues. Upgrading The Base or SP3 install to SP4 causes a BSOD
upon first reboot. I no longer remember the Stop Code, nor do I care.

This computer, built in November 1999 (I'm not absollutely positive about
that date) runs fine without IE6 or SP4. Its based on an Abit VP6 with dual
1GHz P-IIIs with 1.5GB SDRAM, a 40GB O/S drive and 2 240GB RAID 0 arrays,
one for input and one for output. It merrily does video processing all day
every day. I have more than adequate safeguards in place to avoid nasties
that would arrive via the web or email.

The downside of not having IE6 is that I'm denied access to certain websites
and some small amount of software refuses to install. I consider that THEIR
problem, not MY problem. Intuit lost me as a customer because of this but it
was Peachtree's gain. The websites that don't work fail mostly on e-commerce
order forms. Who's loss is that? Certainly not mine, I just simply move on
to another vendor. All I've lost is a few minutes of shopping time.
 
Its really quite simple ... IE6 has a quite noticeable performance impact on
certain computers.
SP4 causes BSODs in some computers.

This particular 6 1/2 year old computer happily runs Win2K/SP3 with IE 5.01.
Both of the above conditions apply.

I have loaded a fresh install of Win2K/SP1 with no additional software other
than the chipset drivers (I'll refer to this as "The Base") . Upgrading The
Base to IE 5.5 or 6 causes a noticeable slowdown in performance. Upgrading
The Base to SP3 (I've always skipped SP2) goes smoothly and there are no
performance issues. Upgrading The Base or SP3 install to SP4 causes a BSOD
upon first reboot. I no longer remember the Stop Code, nor do I care.

This computer, built in November 1999 (I'm not absollutely positive about
that date) runs fine without IE6 or SP4. Its based on an Abit VP6 with dual
1GHz P-IIIs with 1.5GB SDRAM, a 40GB O/S drive and 2 240GB RAID 0 arrays,
one for input and one for output. It merrily does video processing all day
every day. I have more than adequate safeguards in place to avoid nasties
that would arrive via the web or email.

The downside of not having IE6 is that I'm denied access to certain websites
and some small amount of software refuses to install. I consider that THEIR
problem, not MY problem. Intuit lost me as a customer because of this but it
was Peachtree's gain. The websites that don't work fail mostly on e-commerce
order forms. Who's loss is that? Certainly not mine, I just simply move on
to another vendor. All I've lost is a few minutes of shopping time.
Click to expand...

Seems to me you should have sufficient resources to not notice the
differences in speed when upgrading to IE6. I'm running Win 2K Pro
on a machine that was built new one year ago. It has a AMD Duron
1.6 ghz cpu that I run at 1.8 ghz with a 300 mhz effective bus
rate. I have only 256 meg RAM. With IE6, sp4, the rollup and 30+
critical security patches, I haven't encountered any problems, and the
PC seems faster than a speeding bullet to me :) I've had several
different Beta versions of KAV 6 on this PC from time to time, and the
performance hit, while noticeable, isn't enough to make my machine
seem "slow" by any means.

Your description of your situation strikes me as quite odd. 1 ghz
PIIIs with tons of RAM as you have should also be faster than a
speeding bullet, and I wouldn't expect to see what you've described.
But of course I don't do video processing all day either.

Art
http://home.epix.net/~artnpeg
 
On Thu, 4 May 2006 03:52:38 +0000 (UTC), raymond79


Only a Kaspersky Lab tech representative could give you a "straight
from the horse's mouth" answer, so a Beta 6 forum would be the
place to ask.
Click to expand...

Well, that's why I posted. Why would the company list I.E. 5.5 as
required if it was not? Must have something to do with graphics display
or maybe definition downloads.
I wonder why you ask? I recently went through the Windows Update
process ... the sp4, rollup, and all critical patches for a fresh
install of Win 2K ... and MS wouldn't proceed until IE6 sp1 was
first installed. IE6 and keeping up with the latest security patches
go hand in hand. So would any user be concerned with such a question
as you've asked? Simply install IE6 and be done with it.
Click to expand...

And I wonder why no one in alt.comp.anti-virus seems to know the answer
to the OP?

No interest in putting any more Microshit on my box, going to BSD soon
anyways. Only use current I.E. for offline browsing, MS products have so
many security holes they're not worth using, not to mention all their
crash/interdependency problems.
Seems to me the only users who might question such a thing would be
Win 9X users who aren't bothering to upgrade IE ... which is not a
wise thing to do. Eradicating IE on '98 is possible without severely
damaging the OS. Is that where you're coming from? Or what?
Click to expand...

Somewhat, just don't want to deal with MS products. Have already
isolated the OS from everything I can in case it screws up, I just
delete the partition and restore image. It's like building a brick house
on a straw foundation. Using MS stuff temporarily, and for special
programs that only are available for windows.

Anyone else out there have an answer to my original question?
 
raymond79 said:
Well, that's why I posted. Why would the company list I.E. 5.5 as
required if it was not? Must have something to do with graphics display
or maybe definition downloads.
Click to expand...

That is what I heard from lurking in this group - it is required for the
"automatic" updating of the product, but as Art said, for the "horse's
mouth" answer you need to ask them.

There is something funny about a security application that "requires" IE
And I wonder why no one in alt.comp.anti-virus seems to know the answer
to the OP?
Click to expand...

When you ask the vendor, come back here and share the answer with the
group - next time they will know the answer.

I don't recall anyone from Kaspersky ever posting here, but I haven't
been here very long.
 
Back
Top