Free Kaspersky software

[JohnD]

is it good? Can I dump Norton Internet Security and use this one instead?

http://money.uk.msn.com/mymoney/news/article.aspx?cp-documentid=4843856

 

[TonyWarrington]

Cannot speak from recent personal experience but:

I suspect from reading many users comments that the Kaspersky offering better than Norton. Norton has had the reputation for being a resource hog and very likely the cause of slow system response.

There is a comparison here (take with a small pinch of salt as it looks like it may have been written by Kaspersky team)
http://www.ispinabox.co.za/downloads/KIS6vsNIS2007_Eng.pdf

 

[Softus]

You can't beat the Norton AV engine, but Kaspersky is very good.

Norton is a resource hog, and is expensive.

If the edition of Kaspersky being offered to you includes an anti-spyware component then that's A Good Thing.

Ditto anti-spam.

Whether you need a firewall or not depends on your OS and your Internet connection hardware.

If you're still of an impressionable age then you might need a parental control component.

 

[Deluks]

I installed Kaspersky Internet Security (2007) on a pals machine, for the parental control element mainly. It works ok, certainly much better than Norton.

 

[libby lou lou]

hi john, had a £50 package fitted to 3 laptops not so long ago, same
make, definitely slowed my comp down, on a scale, if norton slowed me by 5 seconds, Kaspersky costs me 2.1/2 seconds, actually, would like to get rid!!!





EDIT!!!just read the link john, exactly what i paid for, take it all banks will follow, at least i won't have to pay next year

probly will if i need the latest issue

 

[dave.m]

Money MSN have changed the page that JohnD linked to. But if anyone wants to read the details they are here:
http://www.silicon.com/financialservices/0,3800010322,39254158,00.htm

Would be interesting to see the small print that Barclays customers will get in the new T & Cs.
Wonder if they will be covered for internet fraud if they do not use the Kaspersky or is this a 'cop-out' by Barclays.

dave

 

[gcol]

I installed Kaspersky on my pc running vista and had problems. Something about the software was affecting vista and made it seem as though unauthorised changes had been made - put it in limited use mode. Control panel was empty. Removed Kaspersky and installed AVG and it's fine (it's also free).
Having said that, I also used to use it on XP and found it faultless.

 

[Softus]

Vista.

 

[gcol]

It's a common fact that people just don't like change. Do you still have a black and white tv?

 

[Softus]

It's a common fact that people just don't like change. Do you still have a black and white tv?

Way off mark, gcol.

Some of my living is derived from the fact that Vista is a backward step.

XP+SP3 is just marvellous - way better than anything before it. There are many machines for which I would be happy to recommend a change from Windows 98/Me to XP.

Whether or not to change OS is a business decision for me and many of my clients, and the only responsible advice I can give is to avoid Vista.

However, if you like useless but pretty sidebars/widgets, like to spend more on RAM than you'd need to with XP, like to have basic administrative tasks interrupted by security prompts, like to have familiar GUI features relocated and renamed for absolutely no benefit, and like finding that some of your existing software and hardware has become unusable, then the the way forward for you is clear:- get Vista.
__________________

Edit: corrected speeling mistaks.

 

[JohnD]

Barclays link

http://www.personal.barclays.co.uk/...s&task=channelFWgroup&value=8722&target=_self

 

[gcol]

Some of my living is derived from the fact that Vista is a backward step.

Says who?

Whether or not to change OS is a business decision for me and many of my clients, and the only responsible advice I can give is to avoid Vista.

Is that because you don't understand how to use it?

However, if you like useless but pretty sidebars/widgets...

No I don't, I've got them turned off.

.... like to spend more on RAM than you'd need to with XP

Granted, but memory is cheap now.

, like to have basic administrative tasks interrupted by security prompts

Granted, but you can disable them - I have.

like to have familiar GUI features relocated and renamed for absolutely no benefit

Granted.

and like finding that some of your existing software and hardware has become unusable

Granted and that is annoying.

I'm conscious that I don't want to hijack JohnD's thread with a Vista v XP debate, but in Vista's defence:
The search facility in Vista is excellent and instant.
You can have files displayed in extra large icons - might sound trivial, but if you do a lot of drawings, this makes a massive difference seing what the drawing is before opening.
I play a lot of games and can take advantage of DX10 with Vista. I appreciate not everyone is into games though.
I find Vista much more stable than XP - used to have XP lock up or go into BSOD. Not so with Vista.

 

[Softus]

Some of my living is derived from the fact that Vista is a backward step.

Says who?

1. Those end users who could cope with XP but who cannot cope with Vista.
2. Microsoft, for whom Vista is not making the revenue that they projected.

Do you need any more points of view than those of the end users and the manufacturer?

Whether or not to change OS is a business decision for me and many of my clients, and the only responsible advice I can give is to avoid Vista.

Is that because you don't understand how to use it?

Don't be ridiculous.

However, if you like useless but pretty sidebars/widgets...

No I don't, I've got them turned off.

You can also have them 'turned off' in XP.

.... like to spend more on RAM than you'd need to with XP

Granted, but memory is cheap now.

More memory is never cheaper than less memory.

, like to have basic administrative tasks interrupted by security prompts

Granted, but you can disable them - I have.

You can also have them 'disabled' in XP.

like to have familiar GUI features relocated and renamed for absolutely no benefit

Granted.

So, a running total of Vista advantages is: nil.

and like finding that some of your existing software and hardware has become unusable

Granted and that is annoying.

...nil minus a huge number is a huge negative number.

I'm conscious that I don't want to hijack JohnD's thread with a Vista v XP debate, but in Vista's defence:
The search facility in Vista is excellent and instant.

Granted, but only at the cost of the indexing service constantly devouring resources that you might actually want to be using yourself.

You can have files displayed in extra large icons - might sound trivial, but if you do a lot of drawings, this makes a massive difference seing what the drawing is before opening.

There are third party add-ons that achieve the same thing in XP, but with less RAM.

I play a lot of games and can take advantage of DX10 with Vista. I appreciate not everyone is into games though.

I agree on both counts, but please refer to my previous post which was written in the context of business users.

I find Vista much more stable than XP - used to have XP lock up or go into BSOD. Not so with Vista.

It would be tantamount to criminal negligence if MS hadn't released some XP bug fixes in Vista, but have you tried XP SP3?

 

[gcol]

Some of my living is derived from the fact that Vista is a backward step.

Says who?

1. Those end users who could cope with XP but who cannot cope with Vista.
2. Microsoft, for whom Vista is not making the revenue that they projected.

Do you need any more points of view than those of the end users and the manufacturer?

No but I would like evidence to back up this fact.

Whether or not to change OS is a business decision for me and many of my clients, and the only responsible advice I can give is to avoid Vista.

Is that because you don't understand how to use it?

Don't be ridiculous.

I didn't think I was. Clearly, you think you're an expert.

However, if you like useless but pretty sidebars/widgets...

No I don't, I've got them turned off.

You can also have them 'turned off' in XP.

Then why raise it as an issue?

, like to have basic administrative tasks interrupted by security prompts

Granted, but you can disable them - I have.

You can also have them 'disabled' in XP.

Then why raise it as an issue?

I play a lot of games and can take advantage of DX10 with Vista. I appreciate not everyone is into games though.

I agree on both counts, but please refer to my previous post which was written in the context of business users.

So are you saying that XP is ok for business and Vista or XP is ok for home use?

I find Vista much more stable than XP - used to have XP lock up or go into BSOD. Not so with Vista.

It would be tantamount to criminal negligence if MS hadn't released some XP bug fixes in Vista, but have you tried XP SP3?

Yes, I use it at work on my main pc. Vista on my work laptop and Vista at home.

 

[Softus]

...I would like evidence to back up this fact.

I'm more than happy for you to go off and get the evidence.

Is that because you don't understand how to use it?

Don't be ridiculous.

I didn't think I was. Clearly, you think you're an expert.

It doesn't matter what I think I am, it's all relative.

However, a better/clearer answer to your question would have been "No".

However, if you like useless but pretty sidebars/widgets...

No I don't, I've got them turned off.

You can also have them 'turned off' in XP.

Then why raise it as an issue?

Because they're turned on in Vista by default, and because they are ridiculous trinkets.

, like to have basic administrative tasks interrupted by security prompts

Granted, but you can disable them - I have.

You can also have them 'disabled' in XP.

Then why raise it as an issue?

Because they're turned on in Vista by default, and because they are ridiculous irritants.

I play a lot of games and can take advantage of DX10 with Vista. I appreciate not everyone is into games though.

I agree on both counts, but please refer to my previous post which was written in the context of business users.

So are you saying that XP is ok for business and Vista or XP is ok for home use?

I don't quite see why there's any confusion about what I've said. You were the one (or one of the ones) whose found some software that's compatible with XP but not with Vista.

I haven't mentioned home PCs. If you use a home PC, or a work PC, or laptop that you use only on the train, or plane, that's just for gaming, and you find Vista to be better for that, then please go ahead and enjoy it.

If you use a PC for anything remotely serious and/or to do with running a business, then I can't imagine why you'd want to waste your time disabling things that simply don't exist in XP, and wasting money by buying more memory, just to derive a platform that runs slower than the same machine with XP on it.

I find Vista much more stable than XP - used to have XP lock up or go into BSOD. Not so with Vista.

It would be tantamount to criminal negligence if MS hadn't released some XP bug fixes in Vista, but have you tried XP SP3?

Yes, I use it at work on my main pc.

Am I right in thinking that you find your main PC to be reliable? If not, then why haven't you upgraded it to Vista?

This discussion started with your incorrect presumption that I don't like Vista because I don't like change. You can keep digging and trying to find more reasons why I don't like it, but I've already explained very plainly what the reasons are.

In short, it's pointless. Caveat games playing, supposedly.

And when something is pointless and at the same time incredibly expensive (measured in global terms), I infer that the money could have better spent on something more fruitful. Doing a bit more to Make Poverty History, perhaps. Or eliminate AIDS. Or.....I dunno. Anything. Just something that has some f***ing point.