|
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 |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:08 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2004 - 2006 PCbanter
Comments are property of their posters