SUPERAntispyware Pro, Prevx1, Windows Live Onecare

Does any one think that running SUPERAntispyware Pro, Prevx1, Windows Live Onecare all at the same time will cause any problems? Right now I am running Windows Live Onecare and Prevx1 side by side. I am thinking of possibly just running Windows Live Onecare and Prex1 as my Anti-Malware setup but I am thinking of throwing SUPERAntispyware Pro into the mix. What do you think.

 

Since you can trial Pro for free,why not give it a run out to see
http://www.superantispyware.com/

 

Ditch Windows Live OneCare, which is nothing but a security SUITE and most probably not the very best one on the market.
M$ is a beginner in security, imitates the competition and is trying to make up years of arrears.

In the FirstDefense forums Vista Backup didn't restore FDISR although it was included in the image, another mediocre software of M$. All other image backup softwares restored FDISR.

 

i don't follow these things as closely as most people on this forum, but there was a lot of press a few weeks ago about Windows Live Onecare coming last in a recent test -
http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,129521-c,antivirus/article.html
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,2100528,00.asp

if i was a malware writer i'd make sure my malware wasn't detected by Windows Live Onecare because that would give access to the most PCs (that's if it comes preinstalled on a lot of PCs, i think it does, but i'm not sure )

 

Voila, it's even worse than I thought, but it doesn't surprise me. All MS Applications are mediocre and need a replacement by third party softwares.

 

Heh $M certainly do outdo themselves in just about whatever they fashion don't they? Not to mention also that typically their programs are always so stuffed with pork they need be lifted by a forktruck just to set them inside your box. Now there's an exaggeration for us thats not so far off target is it?

Thank goodness for the talents of Third-Party developers/programs. In majority of all of them they far outperform the engineering department at redmond or wherever they dream up all these great ideas.

 

I always wondered what M$ does with all that money, they don't spend it on applications, that is certain.

 

Well my friend,

I found the answer in here, and I think it's hilarious; especially knowing that maybe it will be built just in our backyard dude.

http://bink.nu/Article7467.bink

And here's a pic of Gates's alleged yacht:

http://www.pbase.com/image/19748439


LOL!!!!!

 

What about switching OS?

 

You sound like Mrkvonic and his Linux.
I prefer to work with the most attacked OS in the world, because the challenge is bigger. Linux would bore me to death.

One day Linux will be in the same situation as Windows.
Three years back Firefox was the safest browser, even when I told them that Firefox wasn't a target, they didn't believe me. Firefox was safe. Period. Firefox has now one patch after another.
The same will happen to Linux once it becomes more popular, but people don't seem to learn anything from the past, why I don't know. Some viruses already exist to attack Linux, that's the beginning.

 

My reply is directly related to your post:

Anyway, i'm sure Firefox was always patched. Linux is too. Every software is.

Since you mention Mrkvonic, he does ask for a working exploit of Firefox, and i still haven't seen a good reply. A site that exploits Firefox. Maybe there is, maybe there isn't. But i haven't heard either.

Linux is for another topic. We could continue this, but not here.

About Windows Live Onecare: it's built to secure the OS from the same company. Good or not, there is a reason to exist. I expect it to get good detection some time in the future. This is Microsoft's backyard, Windows.

 

Windows Live OneCare is based on blacklists and that is the worst way to fight against malware, like any other scanner or any other security tools that is based on blacklists, like MVPS Hosts and IE-SPYAD.
If you want to fight against the bad guys, don't use their stuff, find better weapons.

 

Linux will never be a target for money-driven malware writers. Why?
- Linux will never have the marketshare that Windows enjoys today, although it has serious chances of building a good amount of marketshare.
- Almost all Linux users are geeks whom know their systems: they don't use the root account for everyday computing, they use a strong root password, they download from trusted repositories, they check the checksums of sources/binaries, they use a firewall, etc. So, Joe Sixpack, who browses the Internet using IE, unpatched Windows/outdated AV without firewall and double-click everything he/she gets, will continue to be the target.
- Linux has less remote exploitable vulnerabilities than Windows and they are usually patched in a blinking. Zero-days are almost nonexistent.
Is Linux invincible? Absolutely no. But breaking Linux and/or installing malware is way way more difficult than in Windows.

 

Firefox will never be a target for money-driven malware writers. Why ?
Followed by a number of reasons, just like you did for Linux.
Nevertheless Firefox became a target. Patches and patches to fix it.
Sorry Lucas your post doesn't convince me of anything.

 

Well, the fact that Firefox is patched doesn't prove that it is a target. If I go to the doctor once/twice a year, you shouldn't conclude that I'm very ill

So true. But, remember that blacklists requires almost no user intervention. The average user doesn't want to bother with imaging/rollback/firewall/HIPS/whitelist. They feel secure if a icon/balloon in the systray says "You are protected" until things mess up.
It's like fast food vs healthy, home-made meals

 

As mundane and off the wall if not impossible, i still, like some many others i know who still hold to their 98/Me's for a day when $M gets bought out by a more conservative and hopefully even more intelligent buyer and then proceed to revisit those $M defunct O/S's to spring them back to life again. A simple kernel and other internals re-write could work wonders for them, their customers, and the group who has enough gumption to refashion them again.

Funny, i just this weekend picked up a complete HP with Windows Millineum on a 1GHZ cpu with extra ram i added and it runs reasonably efficient. One can only imagine if they were improved on if just once last time just how useful and complimentary to XP they might really become.

I already got SSM to tighten down security (Thanks to 98/Me support in 2007) and there are still plenty of available softwares compatible with them as-is.

I take offense at $M for hightailing it away from them before first directly addressing them at least one final time instead of avoiding them completely for their flagship product Longhorn turned Vista (cough, cough).

Personally i like Windows Operating system, not for what they are but for the potential of what they really could become if $M put some real stock in users/customers gripes & suggestions for improvements, notwithstanding security. They don't need to be bothered with that (as if they ever did), because that gap openeed the door for some absolutely wonderful developments via other developers and created new businesses for those products that many of us find appealing in more ways than one.

Windows as-is leaves a lot to chance, but at least there are plenty of those third-party makers who are on top of matters and have pretty much filled in a lot of blank lines left in them (by design).