Bit Defender or Nod32?

External Since: Nov 26, 2004 Posts: 389

"ComPCs" <newscompcs.TakeThisOut@yahoo.co.uk.invalid> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d6457327471b2649896f9@news.individual.net...
> In article <11fkc6refcbg77e.TakeThisOut@corp.supernews.com>,
> yesman.TakeThisOut@yourservice.invalid says...
> >
> > "ComPCs" <newscompcs.TakeThisOut@yahoo.co.uk.invalid> wrote in message
> > news:MPG.1d63d8cdde740fcb9896f4@news.individual.net...
> > > In article <11fieb0m34u0s22.TakeThisOut@corp.supernews.com>,
> > > yesman.TakeThisOut@yourservice.invalid says...
> > >
> > >
> > > > "ComPCs" <newscompcs.TakeThisOut@yahoo.co.uk.invalid> wrote in message
> > > > news:MPG.1d6310103ff813639896f1@news.individual.net...
> > >
> > > > > The "means" being?
> > > >
> > > > Isolationism.
> > >
> > > So the "means" are, in actual fact, quite unrealistic, in the
general
> > > terms of computing which this newsgroup covers - e.g. PC's
connected
> > to
> > > the internet/network in some way or another?
> >
> > Nothing unrealistic about isolationism being a secure system without
AV.
>
> Can I clarify a point here ... I am talking about networked machines,
as
> in those folks use to connect to the internet; as in those of us who
> Usenet et al.

No, you were defending your statement about optikl's statement being
nonsense - which it wasn't.

> You are talking of some bearded geek sitting in a darkened bedroom
with
> the curtains closed programming in VB ?

No I'm not, I'm talking about the whole range from the geek to grandma.
Isolationism is one extreme and far too many users make up the other
extreme. They only need what AV has become because of their lack of
means to handle their security without it - not because it is
impossible. Optikl said nothing about not needing AV scanners in
general, which you seem to think is the issue.

> > No, short of isolationism you need only on-demand scanning
capability of
> > those programs you do feel the need to bring onto the machine.
> > Preferably one that has a good detection rating, but even a lesser
one
> > could be enough seeing as the exposure is limited by safe practices.
>
> Sorry chum, you've lost me now ...

That figures. :-\

> I'm talking about everyday usage of
> the home PC, you are talking about some hi-tech geek driven enterprise
> where every system is maintained to perfection by perfection.

Nonsense.

> Oddly enough, there is actually no need for this conversation to
> continue ....

Then don't reply.

External Since: Aug 20, 2005 Posts: 22

In article <11fkc6refcbg77e.TakeThisOut@corp.supernews.com>,
yesman.TakeThisOut@yourservice.invalid says...

[this was meant for the end of the previous post I sent, but I live in
the real world where people make mistakes, so, to append what I
previously wrote]

> That wasn't your statement at all.

I never made a statement in reply to you, I simply reiterated what I had
said earlier.