Quote: "If you know how to use a computer properly, you don't need an anti virus."
wow, dumbest remark I've read yet. Code Red ring any bells?
I doubt DBP is at fault here, since though of us with older Norton are just fine and only the newer versions seem to be affected with this false-positive. Technically, I used Symantec corporate, not Norton.
Lately, I've installed Avira on my laptop and in its most current state it has not detected DB as any sort of threat.
Although, it would be nice if Symantec would let me choose the course of action when an infected file is detected. I used to have a collection of old trojans (don't ask) and it deleted them without asking my permission.
Quote: "n to answer the question how do you know if your infected? Ultra easy guys. Its called task manager and regedit."
Oh yea, super easy. Because every virus shows up as a process in task manager, right?
The whole point of AV software to prevent the virus from running in the first place, otherwise, the damage is probably already done.
Quote: "Its true Nortain and some of the more popular programs out there say they work better. But do they really work better overall? To be honest no"
Based on what evidence? Norton does very well it tests and has a low level of false-positives. It's not #1, but it's in the top. AVG has good detection for most things, but terrible when it comes to worms and has a high level of false-positives. But it runs smoothly, as does Avast. I run Avira because it seemed the best overall, despite having slower performance when compared to others. Since using it(which immediately picked up something on my usb drive), I've noticed no performance difference and would imagine the others would be unnoticeable as well. If you're using the entire Norton 360 security suit or whatever it's called now, then yea it's a little bloated but then you're running more than just the AV and that's an unfair comparison.
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic" ~ Arthur C. Clarke
