Discussion in 'other anti-malware software' started by hayc59, May 18, 2014.
The bug was useless to me so I called the exterminators to get rid of it
Besides tracking cookies, the only thing SAS has ever detected on my machine/s was itself!
Yeah, Panda had a similar bork recently when it tried to eat itself. A tad disconcerting to say the least. Still, SAS removes tracking cookies, and I still like the little yellow bug. Incidentally, Norton, which is basically bloatware on steroids with an eating disorder, failed to find a trojan on my old laptop even after Google informed me that malware had been detected passing onto my computer (I was using SeaMonkey's inbuilt Google translator). Spybot S&D similarly failed spectacularly. SAS found it though. SUPERAntiSpyware's detection rates have been criticised of late, but Norton probably couldn't find its own jacksy even if it was looking right up it lol. I can't understand why people pay to run Norton when there are free AV's infinitely superior.
These days Norton/Symantec's products are some of the best security products in the market, which not only have excellent detections rates but are also are very light, and have a lot less system impact than most security software.
For a number of years, Norton's products were know to cause major slowdowns. Even when they released new versions which people were saying were lighter I still found them to be very heavy on some computers. However, these days they are extremly light.
As for SAS, based on my used of on infected machine, I have to say that the detection rates are abysmal. I regularly cleanup malware/adware infested computers, and would never even consider using SAS, as there are much better free options. However, I do use in on one of my computers, becuase while it's rare for it to detect anything other than tracking cookies, at least it has no issues with false positives.
My ISP had so many complants about Norton that they changed ... to McAfee! That's how bad Norton is. I'm glad they've improved it, it literally couldn't get any worse. I'd rather walk up the M6 with nails in my shoes than run Norton again. I bet money it's not as light as Panda, and not only can I can run that for free, I also bet it has better detection rates than the problematical Norton. Still, everyone to his own.
I really don't know how it compares to Panda, since I rarely use their products, but it is a lot lighter than the vast majority of security software I've tried in the last year or so, and I have tried many different products. In the past, I have not liked Norton's products, even before they became really heavy due to the constant issues with downloading definition updates. But, for the most part I like them a lot nowdays. Not enough, to actually buy a license though.
I appreciate your thoughts on Norton, even if I disagree. But we aren't here to discuss Norton though, are we?
Norton isn't worth discussing, that's true.
I've kind of abandoned the idea of AV suites to be honest. Using bloated programs like Norton and McAfee didn't really endear me to the concept anyway. McAfee didn't seem that bad, but it was huge.
That's not what I said but I am not going to go any further off topic.
Enjoy your delusion!
Well, you originally introduced Norton into the conversation. My only delusion was believing my ISP that Norton was an effective non-problematical anti virus program. I'm not deluded enough to pay for Norton lol!
NO, I posted a link to an earlier post of mine on the Norton forums showing SAS had detected itself. I never mentioned Norton. If I'm wrong feel free to PM me. OK?
Yes, but technically, that is introducing Norton into the conversation. I'd refrained from mentioning which particular AV's I'd used earlier. Admittedly, my experience of nine months of computing hell using Norton has coloured my attitude towards it. Either way, it missed a trojan on my laptop that SAS found and removed.
I'm done here. Clearly you didn't get the reason I posted my link. It had nothing to do with Norton and everything to do with how crap SAS is.
I got the reason, and in my experience, SAS detected malware that Google filters did, but Norton didn't. So, I think it was kind of apposite. If SAS is crap, what does that make Norton then? lol
Stop the bickering please or this thread will be closed.
With best Regards
Thanks Mops21, updated.
Good Evening! Thanks for the Heads Up Mops21...it updated this afternoon! Sincerely...Securon
SAS version 6.0.1222 stops during a 'Complete Scan' (I hardly do any other type of scans) and I have to exit the app.
The next time, SAS runs the 'Complete Scan' to the end without a problem.
It has happened a few times now.
What causes the problem and how do I correct the problem?
Could it be scanning inside a compressed / zipped file at the time?
Possibly, but how do I know?
Well, to start with, open SAS > Scan this computer. Do you have "Scan inside ZIP archives" checked?
Ah, I see! No, I do not have a check mark in the 'Scan inside ZIP archives' box. SAS seems to be sensitive in this regard, but it is not the issue in my case.
Any other possible cause for the SAS scan stopping?
I'm just about out of suggestions but I wonder, have you checked your C drive for errors? Open Administrator Command Prompt and type CHKDSK /F (note the space before the "/") then hit Enter. You will be asked to schedule a scan next time your machine starts, type Y then press Enter. Restart your machine and Windows will check your C drive for any errors. It doesn't take long to run.
Separate names with a comma.