Memory

The horsepower required to process full 5.1 surround sound is miniscule compared to frame after frame of HD graphics in millions of colors. So much of what a sound card does is just passing the audio through. Graphics processing (which is typically highly compressed too) takes a lot more processor power, and RAM space to work in. So technically, a sound card may help, but I suspect the change will be so small, you may not even notice it in benchmark tests.

Do you mean RAMboost? Some with low amounts of system RAM feel it helps. The fact is, the idea did not really pan out or get accepted. That is why not many use it.

As far as many layers of security, an overlapping security is certainly better than no security, or gaps in security. But more does not mean better. And most importantly, and sadly, what so many experienced and novices alike seem to think is that W7 and W8 need to be treated just like XP. That is wrong! W7/W8 are NOT XP.

XP was designed with security almost as an afterthought. Big corporations were more concerned with legacy hardware and software support than they were with security (this in spite of MS wanting to include AV in XP and lock the user accounts down). Microsoft listened and got (and still gets) blamed for our security woes since.

W7 and W8 were designed with security having much more weight than legacy support (for which Microsoft got blasted again, but oh well - security really does trump all).

You do not need to drive an Abrams tank, while wearing a bullet proof vest and helmet while strapped in with a 3-point harness to be safe while driving. You DO need to drive a fairly new, properly maintained car, and MOST IMPORTANT, you need to drive defensively.

That seems like way overkill to me. All you need to do is confirm your primary "real-time" solution blocked anything that tried to get by or that you (as the weakest link) tried to let by.

And I don't know what you mean by "none have backups!"

That is simply wrong. They are good choice. That is not to say others are not better for some, but if what you claim there were true, there would be 100s of millions of Windows users totally infected. And that is just not the case. Plus I note Microsoft does NOT claim MSE and WD are your total solutions, only part of a full solution. So again, fully updated Windows, MSE/WD and MBAM Pro/Pr together with a decent firewall, and Windows Firewall is just fine, form a formidable defense. The rest is up to the user - regardless the anti-malware software being used.

Again, you don't need a monster Hummer or Abrams tank to stay safe.

 

By knowing my way around.
By not downloading crap.
By simple physics - if it ain't there, it aint there.
Operating systems are awfully boring once you know them.

Mrk

 

Hi Bill,

MSE/WD from M$, are not good choices
____
"That is simply wrong. They are good choice. That is not to say others are not better for some, but if what you claim there were true, there would be 100s of millions of Windows users totally infected. And that is just not the case. Plus I note Microsoft does NOT claim MSE and WD are your total solutions, only part of a full solution. So again, fully updated Windows, MSE/WD and MBAM Pro/Pr together with a decent firewall, and Windows Firewall is just fine, form a formidable defense. The rest is up to the user - regardless the anti-malware software being used."

If 'They are good choice.' Then why do they consistently fair so poorly in testing? Others are better for all, so say testing orgs.
Or if one does well in a spelling "B", you would expect that person to spell well, in the real world!

"...there would be 100s of millions of Windows users totally infected." I don't know given the wide variability, in user knowledge, one would expect, top rated AV's would protect more individual, than the AV's who do not fair as well, in testing.

Remember "MSE/WD" are baseline, or better than nothing, so as to give some protection, to the OS out of the box, so said the lady in charge of MSE I believe 'AV Comparatives' dropped MSE from testing, as it was not a true competitor to the rest of the AV scene. Hence most AV's ar better than baseline. I've also heard that MSE/WD do much better when coupled with IE, as opposed to other browsers, perhaps IE does the heavy lifting, which makes MSE/WD look better.

I'm sure you've seen the poor press MSE/WD gets (magazines, testing orgs etc), many saying much better choices exist. Those making such claims are not lying or have a vendetta against M$, do let trash the free M$ AV.

 

Ah. So you do have super powers then. You can tell with every site you visit if it has been compromised, if email attachments are infected, and exactly what the 1000s of tiny files all your programs downloaded (or uploaded!). Clearly amazing!

Still waiting for just one link to just one paper, article, or even a blog from a security expert explaining how users can run without real-time protection and remain safe while using the Internet.

With all due respect, I've been a student of physics for many years. Just because you can't see anything doesn't mean it ain't there.
********

Wrong question. If testing keeps showing they do poorly, why aren't the 100s of millions of MSE/WD users infected? The problem with tests (just like hardware benchtests) is they don't reflect real world scenarios. Just because there may be millions of viruses and variants out there, no way will any computer be exposed to anywhere near all of them.

You are assuming you need a score of 100 to be safe. I say once again, you don't need an Abrams tank to be safe. You don't even need a Hummer or large SUV.

Who are you preaching to? I said in my last response and several times before that even MS says these products are only part of the solution. I have said repeatedly that MSE/WD along with MBAM Pro and WF make a formidable defense. I do not and have not recommended MSE/WD be used as your only anti-malware solution.

Look, I don't care if you use MSE/WD or not. If you prefer Avira, AVG, McAfee, Norton or Comodo, that's great! As long as (1) you use a real-time scanner and don't pretend you are smarter than the badguys and (2) keep it and Windows fully updated. Regardless your primary, you should still scan with a secondary just to make sure nothing got by your primary. That is, if you use Avira, AVG, Norton or whatever, I still recommend you run MBAM (free or Pro/PM) as a secondary. Then you can dump 8 or 9 of those other scanners you have eating up your disk space.

IE being better with MSE/WD, or the other way around is not true. Nothing to it. I use IE, FF and Chrome with MSE/WD and no issues.

Ironic how you use the denigrating "M$" while claiming others have no vendetta.

At any rate, again - you don't need to score 100 to remain safe. You do need to keep Windows current, use a FW, and an updated real-time scanner.

 

Bill, let's remember the initial topic Rico posted: memory and a possible solution to his machine. instead, you have hijacked this and turned into a "everybody needs an AV" discussion. i also agree everyone should have a realtime AV in place, but i recognize everybody choice to do what he wants with his machine. and yeah, MSE/WD is a baseline defense. so, let us focus on Rico's topic.

 

Dan - please don't play moderator with me about running a topic OT then add your own comments running it further OT!!! How hypocritical is that?

And look at who is asking the questions anyway! It is Rico! It is his thread, he can run it anyway he wants (within site rules). My post #26 is all in response to his specific questions. And my last post, #27 is 75% in response to his questions/comments. Your post added nothing constructive at all. So my advice to you is to use the Report button to report my posts if you don't like them, and let the moderators and admin staff do the moderating. Thanks.

NO IT ISN'T!!! Sadly, that is where you are wrong! And even more sadly is most users are as naïve about this as you are. That is not their fault, or your fault. It is clearly a lack of education and understanding of the circumstances, and our responsibilities (unless you are just ignoring the facts and pretending this will never affect you ).

IF this were only an issue of the user's own personal security, then you would be right. But it is not, therefore you are wrong, and so are others who refuse to secure their computers properly. Why? Because I say ONCE AGAIN - because you guys are not listening!!!! - infected machines are used as weapons against the rest of us! Until you accept that, you are a threat to me, my kids and my grandkids (not to mention your own loved ones) and we will remain at odds. This is especially true if there are more users of that system than just you - unless they have paranormal super powers too!

You MUST maintain your car in proper order (regardless how good or clever a driver you are) not just so you don't kill yourself, but so you don't kill others! That is what this is about - not becoming a threat to your fellow computer users and more significantly, Internet users.

Yes, I am very passionate about computer security. I will not apologize for that. I have seen too many times the widespread consequences of letting our guards down. It is a responsibility we, as users MUST understand and undertake with determination and strict discipline BECAUSE our decisions do not affect just us!

Now, so Dan is not forced to read more of my comments, I will depart this thread - unless, of course Rico has more questions.

 

Bill, you are taking everything way too personal. calm down, nobody wants you to get a stroke. and everybody has the right to do what he wants on his machine, no matter what you think. people died in my country for this idea, and people are still dying in the Ukraine today for the freedom of choice.
yeah, sorry for the off-topic...

 

Hi Guys,

This is the "Hardware" section right, which morphed into an AV discussion. I feel pretty comfortable on security, have so for sometime. Once I pull the cover off, I'm not so savvy, so the Q&A for oomph bump.

Bill - I admire your passion & commitment & thank you for your help
Dan - I also agree "very much" with your post #32

As for hardware question(s) none come to mind currently, but I did/do enjoy the MSE conversation. Should I start a new thread on that in a more appropriate area, to continue??

 

It is not a matter of taking anything personal or not. I am reacting and responding from "personal" experiences - but not as an enthusiast or advanced user, but as someone who has been responsible for keeping Windows computers, and their users secure as part of my real job - since before there was Microsoft Windows!

They don't have the right to expose others to threats! When you connect to the Internet, it is the same as pulling on to a public street with your car. Sure, you can legally connect to the Internet, but that does not make it right - and it certainly is irresponsible.

Note I proudly display my military career in my sig. I know first hand the idiom under my name, "Freedom is NOT Free!" rings oh so true. I put a link in my sig so you can see if I am blowing smoke, or if I might have a clue what I am talking about.

Your right to choose does not trump society's right to safety from you! That is the cost of freedom for using the Internet - our responsibility to keep our systems from becoming threats to others.

***
@ Rico - you are right, this is the HW section. As for starting a thread on MSE, you can but there really is nothing more to add - at least on my side. The facts are pretty clear - it is just a matter of accepting them, or not.

There is no denying there are better products than MSE/WD. I said before I don't care what you use, just use one and keep it and Windows current. And don't go where the badguys wallow (don't participate in illegal filesharing via torrents and P2P sites, for example).

There is also no denying, at least in my circles, that regardless your primary real-time solution you should have a secondary scanner too. Just to make sure nothing sneaked by the primary, or you, the user and weakest link didn't open the door and let something in. MBAM Pro/Pm is a popular choice, and my preferred.

It seems to be your contention that more security the better. And the best A/M is a must. I agree that more is better, but only to a point, and then it is just resource hogging overkill - with no significant, if any increase in returns.

You need a lock on your door. And a deadbolt for extra security is a good idea too. But do you need 3 or 4 or 5 deadbolts? Do you need the biggest, strongest deadbolts? Or just a decent one that is properly maintained?

One last thing before I am gone - badguys are criminals of opportunity. They go for the easy pickings, the low hanging fruit. A "basic" and of course, current anti-malware solution, firewall, and fully updated system is enough to cause them to move on down the road. Unless of course, a determined professional badguy is targeting you or your family specifically. Then forget the deadbolts - they will just break a window.

We are a connected world. Our rights as individuals do not automatically trump those of the many.

 

@bill Bright

In message #23, did you call me a fool? Not only once, but twice?

 

Do not take it personally, it applies to me as well. Some people just believe blindly, what they are told. AV companies claim, that you will get infected without AV, so ... I believe facts rather than words, but everyone is entitled to his opinion. Nice quote: Every man is a fool in some man's opinion.

 

I agree to not take things personal - unless they do apply directly to you! Did you not call my words silly? Did you not twist my words around to exaggerate and enhance your own position? Aren't you doing that again?

In post #19 (and repeated again in #23), I said "folks" who don't use a current and real-time antimalware solution and still connect to the Internet are fools and a threat to the rest of us."

And I said in #23,

IF you don't believe a lot of malware is designed to go undetected until activated then used to attack others,
and you refuse to use a current real-time anti-malware solution,
AND you still connect to the Internet,

then you are a fool!​

So, Keatah, if that applies, then yes. AND, IF the above applies, because we know for a fact compromised systems are often used as weapons against others, an irresponsible fool too!

If that is offensive to you personally, well. I am sorry. But when someone who knows better does something reckless that threatens the wellbeing of others, I find that personally offensive. And you should too ESPECIALLY if you have kids, grandkids, siblings, elders or other loved ones who may have less experience than you.

When "WE" connect our computers to the Internet, it is no longer an issue of just our own "personal" rights.

I don't care what the AV companies say - they all claimed it was their job to rid the world of malware too - but they failed (with HUGE profits) because they have ABSOLUTLY no financial incentive to succeed!

AV companies thrive on the success of malware! Frankly, I find that offensive!

I do, however, care what computer and network security experts say. But we have yet to see a single report presented here in this thread that reports users don't need real-time protection.

Is that the purpose of tech support forums - to provide a place for everyone to express our opinions? ESPECIALLY tech support forums dedicated to "security"? Or is the purpose of tech support forums like Wilders Security to help EVERYONE understand the facts so they can maintain and secure their systems to ensure a safe and enjoyable computing and Internet experience without being compromised, threatened, or becoming a threat to others?

Let's not forget for 1 second that compromised machines are used to exploit, kidnap, enslave in sex rings (or worse) our children! Compromised machines are used to steal identities and rob our bank accounts. They are used to send spam and participate in DDoS attacks. It is not the properly protected machine being used for these activities.

***********

So, for the last time, if you don't use a current real-time antimalware solution, if you don't keep your computer fully updated, and if you connect to the Internet, you are a threat to the rest of us!

If you understand that and still connect, then you are a reckless, irresponsible fool! And clearly, a part of the problem, not the solution.

 

I'd say these forums are a mix of providing help and support (example: Software, Hardware and General Services) and sharing opinions (for example: any thread dedicated to a particular AV). You can learn a lot about security software on these forums but I haven't seen any "official" thread saying you MUST run so and so software to stay safe. In fact...

For the record, I do personally run an AV but I have also run without. Anyways so you are saying that all those Wilders member who rely on sandboxes or virtualization and perhaps only on-demand scanning are fools? I'd feel a little insulted if I were them.

 

Then I ask again, where are the white papers, articles, reports explaining to the rest of us how this is done? Where are the reports from recognized IT experts saying we can go without a real-time anti-malware solution?

And BTW, a sandbox does not prevent the malware from executing - it only prevents it from making changes to the "host" computer. Unless network access has been restricted by the user of the sandbox/virtualization software, the malware can still "call out". And it should be noted that malware already on the "host" system does not need a signal from the remote badguy. Any predetermined "event", to include a date and time, can trigger it.

I say again, if someone has a method users can use to secure their systems without the use (or expense in many cases) of real-time anti-malware, they need to patent, copyright and publish that method and become filthy rich! Then do us all a favor and take Symantec, McAfee, and the others who lied to Congress and the EU, who are ripping off consumers and wasting our resources, and run them out of business.

 

Ok I have read one of your previous posts and you seem more concerned about the spread of malware rather than an individual's computer security. I can understand your viewpoint though I don't think your initial comment about some people being fools was necessary.

 

Absolutely! Though I certainly care about the individual's computer security too - even more so if more than one user uses that computer.

If "fool" offends, then I am sorry and I accept that maybe it is a lousy choice of words on my part. But what do you call someone who willingly and unnecessarily exposes others to potential threats without regard to the safety others? Fool? Reckless idiot? Even the newest of newbies know they need anti-malware protection, so it cannot be "naïve".

 

You won't get the papers saying how to go without a real-time anti-malware solution, because that does not bring in MONEY. I am telling you though, you can, easily. For free. Without any great fuss. But that won't bring in millions, which is why all the unnecessary scaremongering in the security industry.
Mrk

 

That's BS too! There are many "free" and fully capable real-time solutions out there and somehow those developers are getting paid - not just by offering pro versions either. There are many respectable magazines (on line and print) that earn money by not selling products.

Well, thanks for sharing.

 

I agree that computer users are responsible for security of their computers and consequently security of others. I don't agree that anti-malware protection is only way to protect your system. HIPS', sandboxes, system hardening, BBs are often more effective than anti-malware. So should we call everyone not using this technologies a "fool"?
Also, when you use anti-malware software, you give responsibility for your security to someone else (AM vendor). So you can do on your system whatever you want since it's responsibility of AM to protect you.
OTOH if you use other (mostly whitelisting) software, you take control of your security in your hands. You have to make important decisions and you are more responsible.
So IMO, AM is not necessary to be responsible computer user.

hqsec

 

Bill, do you really wanna know how it's done?
Mrk

 

I sometimes use on-demand scanning to investigate a specific file or issue or to check out something I feel is out of place. I don't play the game of constant updating and system resource hogging.

I also dislike auto patching and auto updating of software, whether it be operating systems, malware definitions, the next version of an application I rely on, whatever. To me this causes far more problems than mal-ware. I prefer to wait till the rest of the world beta-tests new updates and uncovers usability issues. I apply this philosophy to things ranging from a media player like iTunes to system maintenance utilities to the OS kernel itself. For who is to say the code monkeys at XYZ Software are getting it right?

I'm certainly not opposed to change and system security in the big picture. But all this constant updating of software requires one to relearn things from time to time. And it makes for new vulnerabilities. I'm not paid to participate in a perpetual ongoing "how-to" seminar - relearning desktop conventions & procedures and all that. I'm paid to get things done quickly, correctly, and efficiently - by use of a proven toolset.

And don't get me wrong, I like software updates. But I don't like the breakneck pace at which they happen. Slow down, build a good product, release it when ready. Not according to a beancounter's schedule.

I would like to have expanded upon this more but I gotta git outta here.

 

Bill, so you are saying, that using any AV will prevent you from getting infected, seriously? I visit malware cleaning forums and almost everyone with an infected computer has AV and firewall and it did not really help them to prevent it. Just using multiple on-demand scanners is better than using just 1 AV. Do you think, that malware magically infect computers? Is is a program, that is designed to work in steps, if you manage to prevent just one of the steps to proceed, it will fail. AV does just that, but only, if it can detect it, but in 99,99% cases it can be done simple by using a sandboxed browser and by some other simple security settings. Unless you show me malware, that can infect my computer by itself, I just can not take only your word for it. Also, you claim, that you are entitled to your opinion, but you persuade others, that only yours is the right one and if anyone says otherwise, he is a fool.

 

Who said that? Not me! I said you also MUST keep your systems current, use a firewall and avoid risky behavior. And you should still scan with a secondary scanner just to make sure nothing sneaked by.

Not as individual, stand-alone ("only way to protect your system") products. And how many normal users know what those are or how to use them? If by system hardening, if you mean trimming the systems of all unwanted and unneeded features and files, how many really know what is needed and what is not? And sorry, but I don't know what you mean by BB. BB to me means Bill Bright, or broadband, bare bones, Best Buy, bulletin board or a small projectile.

Of course not, but users of those products hardly represent the vast majority of users, nor would they be considered, "normal" users - which is pretty much 90% of the users out there - with 5% extremes on each end.

The vast majority of users want security to be a "set and forget" feature. And it is pretty much there - but not with your tools.

But you are right. They are not "all" fools and I should not have spoken in such extremes. So AGAIN, if I offended, I apologize. I will rephrase.

Unless you are a bone fide security expert in Windows operating systems and computer networks AND you have absolute "physical control" of your computers and ALL users of your computers, it is irresponsible to connect to a network with Internet access without (1) keeping the OS current, (2) using a firewall, (3) avoiding risky behavior (ex. illegal filesharing via torrents and P2P sites, being "click happy" with unsolicited downloads, attachments and links), and (4) using a current, real-time anti-malware solution. Doing so risks compromising your system, turning it into a threat to you, your computer, your users, other computers on your network and their users, and other Internet users.

FTR, when I say bone fide security expert, I mean someone who has extensive education, training and experience supporting secure computers and networks. FTR, I have IS/IT degrees and certs and decades experience supporting secure networks and I would not pretend for a second I am (1) a security expert or (2) more clever than the badguys.

Also FTR, I am not a fan of anti-malware software! I enjoy it as much as I enjoy insurance companies, big banks, and shysters.

I wanna see a published paper or article on it, one that is subject to peer review.

Here we are in 100% agreement - even those updating issue are not near the problem they were with XP. I always wait a day or two to listen for any fall out. But to me, this is all the more reason to have a real-time scanner. Sure, a zero-day might get by, but those are exceptions for all, and pretty rare if you stay on known sites and are not click-happy.

BUT - if are one to put off then forget to install the updates, I recommend running in full auto-update mode.

Huh Of course not! I said nothing of the sort - seriously! See first paragraph in this reply.

Please don't twist or pick out of context, then bash me for something I did not say. Seriously.

 

Ed Bott sums up my position pretty well - including his slamming of antivirus makers, and how AM software is just one layer of protection.

Do you really need antivirus software?

And also Tom, my bigger concern is these systems becoming threats to others (to include other, less savvy users of the same computer).

 

Right now I use set and forget average user setup (AV, FW, updates...) but for years I've had AV-free setup. I've used HIPS+sandbox combination and never got infected. How do I know? Because I examined every process, driver, service, startup, registry change... that happened on my system. I still used on-demand scanners (just to to be safe ) and never found anything. All that "advanced" security also never saved my system because I practice safe computing. That's why I downgraded my protection and settled with plain AV+FW protection.
My point is that a lot of users of this forum are not average Joes when it comes to security. You can't expect them to follow advices that are meant for less security cautious users. Many have tried different security setups and during this process found their "perfect setup". Some are still looking for it. And yes, some of them don't need or want to use AM. Their systems are still better protected than systems from users who have AV and FW installed and all software updated, but have no idea what is safe computing.

P.S.: BB stands for behaviour blocker

hqsec