AOL Active virus Shield vs Avast Home

omg not this BS again.............
lodore

 

Care to elaborate? I don't think you can support your nasty comment with any facts. Kaspersky has admitted to the problem. They just think Microsoft should fix it even though they caused it...interesting reasoning.

 

How would you fix problems with the file system if you didn't have Chdsk? Of course, Chdsk is necessary. Don't you run it on a regular basis on boot to check for/fix problems? Besides, even if you didn't think it was necessary, how can you be so blaze about Kaspersky ruining an essential Windows program? Some application screws with an essential OS program so that it hangs, and in some cases cannot even complete, I send that program packing. What I don't understand is why Microsoft approved the KAV driver. They probably should have not done so. This is the second time Kaspersky has messed with the file system. They don't learn. They need to approach the situation of slow scanning entirely differently but they don't appear capable of that.

 

Hardly ever nowadays. The NTFS system is far better than Fat32.

It ruined YOUR system, not mine. KIS does a good job on my computer. It delays the chkdsk system a liitle, but that is all.

Everybody makes a choice: I chose KIS, you won't buy KIS or KAV.

 

You can't unless you buy Kaspersky then, third malware catagory is not that important btw, if it was then it woul be enabled default.

Does your own app include something not written by you? You last solution would be to submit it to newvirus@kaspersky.com and put possible false positive in the subjectline.

 

hello mele20,
there are lots of people using kis/kav6.0/7.0 with no chkdisc errors and no problems so why are you still spreading this BS?
if you had that problem with kaspersky tell them what you did so they can reproduce the problem in the lab and fix this issue if it really is an issue.
lodore

 

It is not BS and Kaspersky had admitted to the problem way back with the beginning of the KAV 6 beta. They are so arrogant though as to state that Microsoft should fix the problem...why should they have to when they can pass the buck to Microsoft?

I cannot believe that someone like yourself who appears to have considerable intelligence regarding security software would ever agree to use a product that adds data to your files forever even after you remove the product. Kaspersky has to face a class action lawsuit to force them to understand that they must respect their users. This is a concept they don't understand. First they come up with ADS tagging in KAV5 and they stonewall and stonewall and stonewall when users complained that when they removed KAV5 that they could not remove all the crap that KAV attached to their files, but gave them NO prior notice that this would occur, and no notice that the crap would be there forever and would ruin System Restore and cause XP to need defragging daily and to not be able defrag properly. Finally, after many complaints, and a lot of bad publicity, Kaspersky came up with a removal tool. I was the first person that tool was sent to by KAV tech support before it was available publicly. I used it and it promptly uninstalled my nVidia drivers and did nothing to remove the ADS tags that I got from a BRIEF TRIAL of KAV5. The tool was redone and did finally work properly but it was unconscionable that Kaspersky would blithely and deliberately add all those tags to all files during a mere trial of their product and not care in the slightest that if the user decided to not purchase the product that their uninstaller would not completely remove their product and that nothing would do so...the third party removers didn't work well.

It could be argued that it is one thing if a user agrees to the Eula, even though the Eula reveals nothing about the permanent data that Kaspersky will place on the user's computer, but it is an entirely different thing when the user is simply TRYING OUT Kaspersky and Kaspersky permanently alters all the files on their computer. This happened with KAV5 with the ADS tagging, and now KAV 6 and 7 with the NTFS identifiers. (Symantec and McAfee have the reptutation of their uninstallers not removing everything and I avoid them for that reason but at least with them my files are not all permanently altered and I can, (and have done so) go into the registry and handpick the entries that the uninstallers for those AV's left behind. The problems of McAfee and Symantec leaving stuff behind pales tremedously in comparison to what Kaspersky leaves behind).

KAV finally stopped stonewalling regarding the KAV5 fiasco (after a great deal of negative publicity) and stepped up and gave us a tool to remove the ADS tags and publicly apologized. I accepted that apology as being a good faith gesture from Kaspersky and I believed that they would now approach the main problem KAV has which is extremely slow scanning from an entirely different direction. I also believed that Kaspersky would, in the future, disclose up front, as part of the Eula or before downloading a trial, if there was to be any sort of unalterable tampering with the files by future versions of Kaspersky.

Boy was I wrong. And I am angry that Kaspersky played me deliberately for a dupe as they have all their customers with KAV 6 and now 7. You want to be a dupe and have your files PERMANENTLY ALTERED by KAV fine. But don't you tell me that I should accept that sort of crap. You want an AV that does this because you are terrified of getting a virus and don't believe there are any other decent AV's fine. But don't try and tell others that they should accept some vendor coming in and altering all their files forever without first disclosing that this would happen and thus giving the potential customer the needed information for them to make an INFORMED DECISION as to whether or not they wanted to purchase such an AV that would do this (or use the free AVS or Zone Alarm). Kaspersky did not inform me of what would happen if I installed KAV6.

Further, Kaspersky lied to me because they state that ISwift and IChecker can be turned off. That is not true according to Lucian. They can be turned off but not in the GUI. KAV did not inform me that to turn them off I would have to do so in the Registry after disabling Self Protection. Lucian says even that may not work. My consent to the Kaspersky EULA and the install of the AV was not an informed consent. My understanding was that I could totally and forever disable ISwift and IChecker in the GUI. Having been a victim of the ADS fiasco with KAV5, I had no intention of ever allowing ISwift or IChecker to run. If I had been told the truth, I would never have installed KAV6 and thus would not have damage to my computer due to using KAV6.

 

hey mele20,
I do understand what your saying but i dont know anyone affected by it.
the only problem i have is a slight delay in stage 2 of chkdisc no more no less.
also they do listen to customers because the reason why the put the technology in kis6.0 was due to customer demand stating the program used to much resourse and was to slow.
lodore

 

Same here. I recently formatted and rebuilt my system, and beforehand, I did suffer from the chkdsk problems that have been described by some others. However, since the rebuild, I have been swapping between KAV and NOD like there is no tomorrow - with no chkdsk problems. That means numerous installs of KAV, and a hell of a lot of full system scans. The only issue I find is that stage 2 of chkdsk is slightly delayed starting. Now, this doesnt bother me, but I am slightly afraid to use KAV in case the problems start to materialize once again.

KAV is a top notch product, but regardless of the fact that neither you or I experience the problems to the extent that some others have - there needs to be a solution. Because some people are having problems like I used to have: and they are far from happy about it. Something has to be done in my opinion...

EDIT: ooh! 99 posts!