best free WinXP anti-virus
 

Hi,

WinXP is essential on my WnXP (physical) PC. As a grandfather, this PC runs
Microsoft Security Essentials. It still upgrades to the latest definitions.
But I only run it when needed. Malware removal requires direct action.

Because WinXP is essential, I've set up a new virtual WinXP PC under Oracle
Virtual Box. I was able to recover much of a destroyed virtual WinXP PC.
Placing blame for failure of Oracle Virtual Box installs is for losers. Life
is for learning.

One learns that corporate software vendors are tying to bleed us. I cannot
find any free WinXP anti-virus apps online. The best I can find if McAfee
that is free to install with Abode PDF reader. McAfee has been denounced by
its druggie creator, McAfee.

I looking for opinions on McAfee or other free WinXP anti-virus software.

Thanks is advance.

best free WinXP anti-virus
 

Norm X wrote:
WinXP is essential on my WnXP (physical) PC.

I still have a WinXP install I use sometimes. Its BIOS is dated 2006.

As a grandfather, this PC runs Microsoft Security Essentials. It
still upgrades to the latest definitions. But I only run it when
needed. Malware removal requires direct action.

I recently ran Kaspersky's Rescue disk on mine to see how it behaved.

One learns that corporate software vendors are tying to bleed us. I
cannot find any free WinXP anti-virus apps online. The best I can
find if McAfee that is free to install with Abode PDF reader. McAfee
has been denounced by its druggie creator, McAfee.

I'm not a fan of McAfee ware. The John McAfee story is fascinating. I
highly recommend the several Wired magazine articles. They are
available online.

Here's a snip from the wp article about the upcoming film:

"On March 27, 2017, it was announced that Johnny Depp would portray
McAfee in a forthcoming film titled King of the Jungle.[81] The film
will focus on McAfee's life in Belize, as he takes a Wired magazine
writer on a tour of his compound. Glenn Ficarra and John Requa will
direct the film, while Scott Alexander and Larry Karaszewski will write
the script."

I looking for opinions on McAfee or other free WinXP anti-virus software.

I put the Kaspersky onto a USB and booted and configured and ran it. It
doesn't run on the windows, it runs on its own linuxy OS.


--
Mike Easter

best free WinXP anti-virus
 

https://www.avira.com/

I Have Version 15.0.19.163
On A Xp sp3 Pro

Current Version: 9.0.0.418 | Oldest Version: 10.0.0.561

http://www.oldversion.com/windows/avira-antivir/

Avira AntiVir the antivirus software from German company Avira. There are
two types of the Avira AntiVir software freeware and premium. The free
version includes basic virus protection, anti-spyware/ad-ware and web guard
with the premium version providing more advanced features making it a
complete software security package.

The engine used in the Avira AntiVir program was developed way back in 1988
and has gone on to be one of the most widely used antivirus programs to
date. Avira AntiVir is designed like most antivirus software on the market,
to run as a background process scanning and checking files on the hard drive
and any new additions of files download or copied to the hard disk. Over the
years new updates to the program include a web guard checking websites for
any malicious content which could harm your PC. An important root kit
detection and removal feature was included with the release of version 7.0.x
in 2007 preventing certain detrimental effects to the hard disk. Avira
AntiVir 8.1.x saw enhancements to the user interface along with a new and
improved engine producing faster scanning and detection times.

For compatibility Avira AntiVir 7.0.x was the last version supported for
Windows NT/98/SE, later versions are supported on Windows 2000/XP/Vista/7.
Avira has ended support for version 9.x as of June 2011; however the version
is still functional as are all older versions of Avira AntiVir.

Pros: Light on PC resources, simple UI, automatic updates, fast,
anti-spyware/ad-ware, rootkit protection.

Cons: Free version doesn Read More »

"Norm X" wrote in message
...
Hi,
WinXP is essential on my WnXP (physical) PC. As a grandfather, this PC
runs Microsoft Security Essentials. It still upgrades to the latest
definitions. But I only run it when needed. Malware removal requires
direct action.
Because WinXP is essential, I've set up a new virtual WinXP PC under
Oracle Virtual Box. I was able to recover much of a destroyed virtual
WinXP PC. Placing blame for failure of Oracle Virtual Box installs is for
losers. Life is for learning.
One learns that corporate software vendors are tying to bleed us. I cannot
find any free WinXP anti-virus apps online. The best I can find if McAfee
that is free to install with Abode PDF reader. McAfee has been denounced
by its druggie creator, McAfee.
I looking for opinions on McAfee or other free WinXP anti-virus software.
Thanks is advance.

best free WinXP anti-virus
 

Norm X wrote (edited to the gist):

I looking for opinions on McAfee or other free WinXP anti-virus
software.

My opinions on McAfee (and Norton but not their enterprise version) are
derogatory. No need to get into all that since that's not what you are
really after (unless you are here to instigate a flame thread). You
want recommendations for AV software to use on WinXP.

https://blog.avast.com/2014/03/12/av...usiness-users/

That was back in 2014. Then I visited:

https://www.avast.com/en-us/index

Near the bottom of the page is said "Compatible with Windows 10, 8.1, 8,
7, Vista, XP SP3".

best free WinXP anti-virus
 

"Norm X" wrote in
:

I looking for opinions on McAfee or other free WinXP anti-virus
software.

Thanks is advance.

I use Avira (free) combined with MalwareBytes Premium (paid).

For more research you can take a look at
https://www.av-comparatives.org/
They do all kinds of testing and reviews of anti-virus software.

Dee

best free WinXP anti-virus
 

On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 09:53:59 -0700, "Norm X"
wrote:

I looking for opinions on McAfee or other free WinXP anti-virus software.

I use Avast.

It seems to work OK.


--
Steve Hayes
http://www.khanya.org.za/stevesig.htm
http://khanya.wordpress.com

best free WinXP anti-virus
 

Steve Hayes wrote:
I use Avast.

It seems to work OK.

I would like Avast better if it would decimate its self-promotions.

--
Mike Easter

best free WinXP anti-virus
 

Mike Easter wrote:

Steve Hayes wrote:

I use Avast. It seems to work OK.

I would like Avast better if it would decimate its self-promotions.

Or, alternatively, you could pick another freeware AV that doesn't have
the ads but also doesn't have all the features (e.g., Bitdefender Free -
but that one doesn't mean the OP's Windows XP requirement).

best free WinXP anti-virus
 

VanguardLH wrote:

Mike Easter wrote:

Steve Hayes wrote:

I use Avast. It seems to work OK.

I would like Avast better if it would decimate its self-promotions.

Or, alternatively, you could pick another freeware AV that doesn't have
the ads but also doesn't have all the features (e.g., Bitdefender Free -
but that one doesn't mean the OP's Windows XP requirement).

Or you could go with open source freeware with no ads but sucks on
coverage (unacceptably low detection rate) and low on the number of
covered infection vectors (e.g., ClamAV).

My guess is the OP is not interested (or has secondary interest) in
on-demand (reactive) scanners and instead is looking for on-access
(pro-active) scanners, so booting to a Linux OS with an AV is not likely
an option to the OP.

best free WinXP anti-virus
 

VanguardLH wrote:
VanguardLH wrote:
Mike Easter wrote:

Steve Hayes wrote:

I use Avast. It seems to work OK.

I would like Avast better if it would decimate its self-promotions.

Or, alternatively, you could pick another freeware AV that doesn't have
the ads but also doesn't have all the features (e.g., Bitdefender Free -
but that one doesn't mean the OP's Windows XP requirement).

Or you could go with open source freeware with no ads but sucks on
coverage (unacceptably low detection rate) and low on the number of
covered infection vectors (e.g., ClamAV).

My guess is the OP is not interested (or has secondary interest) in
on-demand (reactive) scanners and instead is looking for on-access
(pro-active) scanners, so booting to a Linux OS with an AV is not likely
an option to the OP.

I was going to bring that up about BitDefender's rescue disk/usb. About
a year ago I looked at several of those including BD's, Kaspersky, Avast
and some others and liked Kaspersky's the best. Avast is a WinPE, BD's
is an XFCE Gentoo system rescue remaster with a lot of linux tools and
an installed TeamViewer. Kaspersky's is a hand-rolled linux with an old
KDE frontend.

If he's not afraid to not have a realtime scanner, there's something to
be said for periodic scans so that he doesn't have to use scarce
realtime resources. Some old XP machines don't have much to spare.


--
Mike Easter

best free WinXP anti-virus
 

Mike Easter wrote:
VanguardLH wrote:
VanguardLH wrote:
Mike Easter wrote:

Steve Hayes wrote:

I use Avast. It seems to work OK.

I would like Avast better if it would decimate its self-promotions.

Or, alternatively, you could pick another freeware AV that doesn't have
the ads but also doesn't have all the features (e.g., Bitdefender Free -
but that one doesn't mean the OP's Windows XP requirement).

Or you could go with open source freeware with no ads but sucks on
coverage (unacceptably low detection rate) and low on the number of
covered infection vectors (e.g., ClamAV).

My guess is the OP is not interested (or has secondary interest) in
on-demand (reactive) scanners and instead is looking for on-access
(pro-active) scanners, so booting to a Linux OS with an AV is not likely
an option to the OP.

I was going to bring that up about BitDefender's rescue disk/usb. About
a year ago I looked at several of those including BD's, Kaspersky, Avast
and some others and liked Kaspersky's the best. Avast is a WinPE, BD's
is an XFCE Gentoo system rescue remaster with a lot of linux tools and
an installed TeamViewer. Kaspersky's is a hand-rolled linux with an old
KDE frontend.

If he's not afraid to not have a realtime scanner, there's something to
be said for periodic scans so that he doesn't have to use scarce
realtime resources. Some old XP machines don't have much to spare.

There's only a slight problem with the Kaspersky one.

It appears to be based on Gentoo, and stripped of anything
that might be remotely useful.

It cannot handle large tarballs. It can stop scanning (error out)
if you offer it the source tarball for Firefox. So if I use
that to scan a Windows OS partition, I have to make sure
no overly big tarballs are present. Firefox or Thunderbird
source would make it throw a wobbly.

It's an on-demand scanner that runs with Windows offline,
which is quite far from the original requirement of an
online real-time AV product. It's what you might run, after
there is trouble. And it can at least spot copies of EICAR,
as I've tested it with that. I don't have any kind of
malware samples here, to use to test its breadth of coverage.

The update server at Kaspersky is very slow. When you download
the CD, the database will be no more than a week out of date.
After several months, if you boot the CD, it could take
20 minutes for the database to update, at 5KB/sec. The server
does not prioritize the serving of "free" content for that
thing. The database is "cached" on your C: drive, so the
program does make changes to your system, only in the name
of storing the updates it downloaded. Otherwise,
it would have to download 100MB of stuff, every time you
used it.

It also uses the Windows pagefile as a swap partition.

And it's multithreaded, up to a point. It might run on
four cores or so, when it's in a good mood. You can run
"top" in a terminal, and watch CPU usage.

Paul

best free WinXP anti-virus
 

"VanguardLH" wrote in message
...
Mike Easter wrote:
Steve Hayes wrote:
I use Avast. It seems to work OK.
I would like Avast better if it would decimate its self-promotions.
Or, alternatively, you could pick another freeware AV that doesn't have
the ads but also doesn't have all the features (e.g., Bitdefender Free -
but that one doesn't mean the OP's Windows XP requirement).
..
VanguardLH You 100% Right

For I use Avast
On Windows 98
it's A lifesaver

best free WinXP anti-virus
 

In message , Paul
writes:
[]
And it's multithreaded, up to a point. It might run on
four cores or so, when it's in a good mood. You can run
"top" in a terminal, and watch CPU usage.

Paul

I thought XP was limited to two cores?
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

I'd rather trust the guys in the lab coats who aren't demanding that I get up
early on Sundays to apologize for being human.
-- Captain Splendid (quoted by "The Real Bev" in mozilla.general, 2014-11-16)

best free WinXP anti-virus
 

On Fri, 11 Aug 2017 11:59:13 -0700, Mike Easter
wrote:

Steve Hayes wrote:
I use Avast.

It seems to work OK.

I would like Avast better if it would decimate its self-promotions.

So would most of its users, I suspect.


--
Steve Hayes
http://www.khanya.org.za/stevesig.htm
http://khanya.wordpress.com

best free WinXP anti-virus
 

J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , Paul
writes:
[]
And it's multithreaded, up to a point. It might run on
four cores or so, when it's in a good mood. You can run
"top" in a terminal, and watch CPU usage.

Paul

I thought XP was limited to two cores?

The Win2K license is based on CPU cores in
a sense. So a dual socket P3 system would be
the limit for Win2K. If you installed Win2K
on a 9650 Quad Core for LGA775 (possible to do),
it would only recognize two cores.

Whereas, WinXP is socket based

Home = 1 socket
Pro = 2 sockets

That means, with the WinXP Home install, you
could use ThreadRipper 16C 32T processor and
it would work. Because that huge processor,
is still a single socket. I think the limit on
WinXP might be 32 virtual cores (Affinity in
Task Manager goes from 0..31). So WinXP Home
is the perfect OS for the job :-)

If you installed WinXP Pro on a two socket
Epyc server motherboard, that would give
64C 128T total, but because WinXP only goes
up to 32 virtual cores, I expect a lot of
that would get tossed from a control perspective.

By licensing sockets, Microsoft "left a lot
of room for fun". That's why, when it comes
to server OS licensing now, they've switched
back to counting cores. This has caused
some enterprises, to install lower core
count processors, on boxes intended to be
segregated on the network. By using a lower
core count, money can be saved on the server OS license.
(The server has a small number of cores and
a large amount of memory.)

This is one reason, the Epyc with the low core
count, will probably be popular in some circles.
And it's all because of greedy Oracle-style
licensing. Thank God consumer versions don't
work that way.

*******

When you have too many cores, Task Manager
changes to "colored squares" instead of graphs.
The idea is, the darker the color of a square,
the harder the core is working. That's the basic
idea. And they do it that way, because a graph
wouldn't be all that legible if it was a small
number of pixels wide. Apparently Win10 has
an arbitrary 640 core limit, as far as affinity
and graphing. So it's a bit better than WinXP
at 32.

https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/b8/...al-processors/

Paul