P
P
plun
plun said:
One comments directly from a user:
"I installed it and the result is a much slower computer.
This program adds programs to startup (naturally) but has 8
services running. No customization during install. It's a
memory hog!
Time to run System Restore...."
R
Ron
Thank God, I just missed walking in your shoes. I've
reached the point that I will not be upgrading my Norton
products later this year. They are really disappointing
me, and I've used them since Norton Utilities ran under
DOS.
reached the point that I will not be upgrading my Norton
products later this year. They are really disappointing
me, and I've used them since Norton Utilities ran under
DOS.
B
Bill Sanderson
My current antivirus--F-secure--runs a large number of processes. If I'm
counting them right I get 13 at the moment. I don't find this to be a
problem--they don't eat ram or CPU particularly.
It has the absolute best autoupdate I've seen, in terms of being
unobtrusive. The usual icon is a little blue triangle, and you get a green
bar below it sometimes at boot, which is a progress bar for the autoupdate.
No interaction needed--just a tiny indicator to let you know it is
happening. The updates come in via Backweb, which some old-line antispyware
folks may think of as not good.
My own experience with Symantec products for the home consumer is parallel
to what you posted, so I won't say the post is wrong--but multiple processes
isn't necessarily a terrible sin--in fact, it is probably an absolute
requirement for something which has to dig as deeply as an antivirus or
anti-spyware app, these days.
counting them right I get 13 at the moment. I don't find this to be a
problem--they don't eat ram or CPU particularly.
It has the absolute best autoupdate I've seen, in terms of being
unobtrusive. The usual icon is a little blue triangle, and you get a green
bar below it sometimes at boot, which is a progress bar for the autoupdate.
No interaction needed--just a tiny indicator to let you know it is
happening. The updates come in via Backweb, which some old-line antispyware
folks may think of as not good.
My own experience with Symantec products for the home consumer is parallel
to what you posted, so I won't say the post is wrong--but multiple processes
isn't necessarily a terrible sin--in fact, it is probably an absolute
requirement for something which has to dig as deeply as an antivirus or
anti-spyware app, these days.
B
BobA5835
Yo Bill:
I noticed you mention Backweb and I've been meaning to
ask about it. "The updates come in via Backweb, which
some old-line antispyware folks may think of as not good."
I've notice that MSAS doesn't see it, but then neither
does AdAware SE or any of my other anti-virus/spyware
programs. The only way I knew it was on my computer was
a recent article in PCWorld regarding my computer maker
being one that uses it for updating. Ccleaner sees it,
but doesn't remove it in normal running.
So what's the beef with it? If it's used by the computer
makers as a program updater why the bad press?
Tks again,
Bob
I noticed you mention Backweb and I've been meaning to
ask about it. "The updates come in via Backweb, which
some old-line antispyware folks may think of as not good."
I've notice that MSAS doesn't see it, but then neither
does AdAware SE or any of my other anti-virus/spyware
programs. The only way I knew it was on my computer was
a recent article in PCWorld regarding my computer maker
being one that uses it for updating. Ccleaner sees it,
but doesn't remove it in normal running.
So what's the beef with it? If it's used by the computer
makers as a program updater why the bad press?
Tks again,
Bob
B
Bill Sanderson
Here are a couple of references:
http://www.personalfirewall.trustix.com/spyware/backweb.html
http://www.neuber.com/taskmanager/process/backweb-8876480.exe.html
I'm not sure what all the issues are. I do notice that F-secure's instance
has a unique number attached, and it looks to me as though they are very
careful to ensure that only legit updates flow through it--as you would
hope.
Checking out the references, it looks as though perhaps this is a case of a
legit app which has sometimes been misused in the past, but I'm not
sure--and don't have first-hand experience with it. I can recall being told
to remove it when it is found in HijackThis logs, and checking it out myself
and finding that it was a legitimate update mechanism for something I knew
about and wanted kept updated.
http://www.personalfirewall.trustix.com/spyware/backweb.html
http://www.neuber.com/taskmanager/process/backweb-8876480.exe.html
I'm not sure what all the issues are. I do notice that F-secure's instance
has a unique number attached, and it looks to me as though they are very
careful to ensure that only legit updates flow through it--as you would
hope.
Checking out the references, it looks as though perhaps this is a case of a
legit app which has sometimes been misused in the past, but I'm not
sure--and don't have first-hand experience with it. I can recall being told
to remove it when it is found in HijackThis logs, and checking it out myself
and finding that it was a legitimate update mechanism for something I knew
about and wanted kept updated.
B
BobA5835
Mr. Bill:
Thank you, Sir, for the links, I'll check them out.
Bob
Thank you, Sir, for the links, I'll check them out.
Bob