Malwarebites?

Ron wrote:
On 2/19/2015 10:28 AM, A wrote:
Ron wrote:
On 2/19/2015 9:35 AM, A wrote:
Ron wrote:
On 2/19/2015 1:57 AM, Andy wrote:
You're first problem was you used McAfee software the company with
the
worst
reputation in the business.
so you're BS is you're own ignorance.
I wouldn't use McAfee products if you GAVE them to me.

McAfee SiteAdvisor was the first tool of it's kind AFAIK. And, it
was
also "recommended monthly in many pc magazines". Isn't that your
standard? So, I guess you are smarter that McAfee SiteAdvisor, right?
Because you test THOUSANDS of websites like McAfee does to see if they
are safe, right?



Ever hear of W.O.T.? **** McAfee.


If you read my post to Andy from yesterday you will see that I use WOT
now. But several years ago, probably about 10 now, Site Advisor was the
only tool of it's kind, that I know of. Now there are many tools that
rate websites.

When you have to have a special tool to uninstall a program, me no like.
McAfee doesn't have a good reputation compared to other programs and is
a resource hog. Free Avast is better.


As I've already mentioned, SiteAdvisor is a *browser add-on*.

Not relevant.

And IMO,
Panda is a better AV program than Avast.

LOL! That's funny!

Speaking of resource hogs, that
is exactly what Avast has become. At least it was the last time I used
it 2 years ago.

I never had a problem with Avast and I've been using it over a decade. I
do like it's boot scan.

--
A

On 2/20/2015 8:03 AM, A wrote:
Ron wrote:
On 2/19/2015 10:28 AM, A wrote:
Ron wrote:
On 2/19/2015 9:35 AM, A wrote:
Ron wrote:
On 2/19/2015 1:57 AM, Andy wrote:
You're first problem was you used McAfee software the company with
the
worst
reputation in the business.
so you're BS is you're own ignorance.
I wouldn't use McAfee products if you GAVE them to me.

McAfee SiteAdvisor was the first tool of it's kind AFAIK. And, it
was
also "recommended monthly in many pc magazines". Isn't that your
standard? So, I guess you are smarter that McAfee SiteAdvisor, right?
Because you test THOUSANDS of websites like McAfee does to see if
they
are safe, right?



Ever hear of W.O.T.? **** McAfee.


If you read my post to Andy from yesterday you will see that I use WOT
now. But several years ago, probably about 10 now, Site Advisor was the
only tool of it's kind, that I know of. Now there are many tools that
rate websites.

When you have to have a special tool to uninstall a program, me no like.
McAfee doesn't have a good reputation compared to other programs and is
a resource hog. Free Avast is better.


As I've already mentioned, SiteAdvisor is a *browser add-on*.

Not relevant.

You said that you needed a "special tool" to remove McAfee. You don't
need a "special tool" to remove the browser add-on. So it's very
relevant to what is being discussed.

And IMO,
Panda is a better AV program than Avast.

LOL! That's funny!

Yeah, so funny that it's rated higher in protection and performance than
Avast.

http://www.av-test.org/en/antivirus/...ows/windows-8/

Speaking of resource hogs, that
is exactly what Avast has become. At least it was the last time I used
it 2 years ago.

I never had a problem with Avast and I've been using it over a decade. I
do like it's boot scan.

Yeah, boot time scan is a good feature. They need to remove the program
updater. It's useless.

Ron wrote:
On 2/20/2015 8:03 AM, A wrote:
Ron wrote:
On 2/19/2015 10:28 AM, A wrote:
Ron wrote:
On 2/19/2015 9:35 AM, A wrote:
Ron wrote:
On 2/19/2015 1:57 AM, Andy wrote:
You're first problem was you used McAfee software the company with
the
worst
reputation in the business.
so you're BS is you're own ignorance.
I wouldn't use McAfee products if you GAVE them to me.

McAfee SiteAdvisor was the first tool of it's kind AFAIK. And, it
was
also "recommended monthly in many pc magazines". Isn't that your
standard? So, I guess you are smarter that McAfee SiteAdvisor,
right?
Because you test THOUSANDS of websites like McAfee does to see if
they
are safe, right?



Ever hear of W.O.T.? **** McAfee.


If you read my post to Andy from yesterday you will see that I use WOT
now. But several years ago, probably about 10 now, Site Advisor was
the
only tool of it's kind, that I know of. Now there are many tools that
rate websites.

When you have to have a special tool to uninstall a program, me no
like.
McAfee doesn't have a good reputation compared to other programs and is
a resource hog. Free Avast is better.


As I've already mentioned, SiteAdvisor is a *browser add-on*.

Not relevant.

You said that you needed a "special tool" to remove McAfee. You don't
need a "special tool" to remove the browser add-on. So it's very
relevant to what is being discussed.

And IMO,
Panda is a better AV program than Avast.

LOL! That's funny!

Yeah, so funny that it's rated higher in protection and performance than
Avast.

http://www.av-test.org/en/antivirus/...ows/windows-8/

Speaking of resource hogs, that
is exactly what Avast has become. At least it was the last time I used
it 2 years ago.

I never had a problem with Avast and I've been using it over a decade. I
do like it's boot scan.

Yeah, boot time scan is a good feature. They need to remove the program
updater. It's useless.





If I were going to pay, and Panda isn't free, I would buy Kaspersky. I
also have a lot of things like Malwarebytes, Spybot S&D, etc.

--
A

Ron wrote:
On 2/20/2015 8:03 AM, A wrote:
Ron wrote:
On 2/19/2015 10:28 AM, A wrote:
Ron wrote:
On 2/19/2015 9:35 AM, A wrote:
Ron wrote:
On 2/19/2015 1:57 AM, Andy wrote:
You're first problem was you used McAfee software the company with
the
worst
reputation in the business.
so you're BS is you're own ignorance.
I wouldn't use McAfee products if you GAVE them to me.

McAfee SiteAdvisor was the first tool of it's kind AFAIK. And, it
was
also "recommended monthly in many pc magazines". Isn't that your
standard? So, I guess you are smarter that McAfee SiteAdvisor,
right?
Because you test THOUSANDS of websites like McAfee does to see if
they
are safe, right?



Ever hear of W.O.T.? **** McAfee.


If you read my post to Andy from yesterday you will see that I use WOT
now. But several years ago, probably about 10 now, Site Advisor was
the
only tool of it's kind, that I know of. Now there are many tools that
rate websites.

When you have to have a special tool to uninstall a program, me no
like.
McAfee doesn't have a good reputation compared to other programs and is
a resource hog. Free Avast is better.


As I've already mentioned, SiteAdvisor is a *browser add-on*.

Not relevant.

You said that you needed a "special tool" to remove McAfee. You don't
need a "special tool" to remove the browser add-on. So it's very
relevant to what is being discussed.

And IMO,
Panda is a better AV program than Avast.

LOL! That's funny!

Yeah, so funny that it's rated higher in protection and performance than
Avast.

http://www.av-test.org/en/antivirus/...ows/windows-8/

Avast wasn't tested.


--
A

On 2/9/2015 3:31 PM, philo wrote:
On 02/09/2015 03:11 PM, Gordon wrote:
I have been having some problems with my HP Pavilion, running Windows
8.1. It seemed to be loaded up with trash and other forms of malware.
I bought an on-line copy of Malwarebites, installed it and ran it this
morning. Everything went very well and most of the problems seem to
have been eradicated...but, I keep getting a pop-up saying,

There was a problem starting
C:\Gordon\ApData\Local\ARCADE~1\CATHEL~1.DLL
The specified module could not be found.

What is causing this, and how can I get rid of it?

Thanks, Gordon



"Arcade" was evidently removed but still exists in startup.

See if it's listed in Task Manager and if so, disable it.


http://www.groovypost.com/howto/wind...rtup-programs/

Yeah--I know --a bit off topic -- Grt (free) "Revo Uninstaller"
or "Absolute Uninstaller". Either will show what's on your computer
and permit thorough uninstalling.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com

On Fri, 20 Feb 2015 20:29:24 +0100, A wrote:
And IMO,
Panda is a better AV program than Avast.

LOL! That's funny!

Yeah, so funny that it's rated higher in protection and performance than
Avast.

http://www.av-test.org/en/antivirus/...ows/windows-8/

Avast wasn't tested.

Your remark made me curious enough to take a look. Panda wasn't even
very high among the ones that *were* tested :-)

IMO, if you prefer a given AV program or suite, all you need to do is
find the right review. AV reviews are pretty inconsistent, one to
another, except they all rank the one I use very low (you guessed it:
MSE).

--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)

On 2/20/2015 2:26 PM, A wrote:
Ron wrote:
On 2/20/2015 8:03 AM, A wrote:
Ron wrote:
On 2/19/2015 10:28 AM, A wrote:
Ron wrote:
On 2/19/2015 9:35 AM, A wrote:
Ron wrote:
On 2/19/2015 1:57 AM, Andy wrote:
You're first problem was you used McAfee software the company with
the
worst
reputation in the business.
so you're BS is you're own ignorance.
I wouldn't use McAfee products if you GAVE them to me.

McAfee SiteAdvisor was the first tool of it's kind AFAIK. And, it
was
also "recommended monthly in many pc magazines". Isn't that your
standard? So, I guess you are smarter that McAfee SiteAdvisor,
right?
Because you test THOUSANDS of websites like McAfee does to see if
they
are safe, right?



Ever hear of W.O.T.? **** McAfee.


If you read my post to Andy from yesterday you will see that I use
WOT
now. But several years ago, probably about 10 now, Site Advisor was
the
only tool of it's kind, that I know of. Now there are many tools that
rate websites.

When you have to have a special tool to uninstall a program, me no
like.
McAfee doesn't have a good reputation compared to other programs
and is
a resource hog. Free Avast is better.


As I've already mentioned, SiteAdvisor is a *browser add-on*.

Not relevant.

You said that you needed a "special tool" to remove McAfee. You don't
need a "special tool" to remove the browser add-on. So it's very
relevant to what is being discussed.

And IMO,
Panda is a better AV program than Avast.

LOL! That's funny!

Yeah, so funny that it's rated higher in protection and performance than
Avast.

http://www.av-test.org/en/antivirus/...ows/windows-8/

Speaking of resource hogs, that
is exactly what Avast has become. At least it was the last time I used
it 2 years ago.

I never had a problem with Avast and I've been using it over a decade. I
do like it's boot scan.

Yeah, boot time scan is a good feature. They need to remove the program
updater. It's useless.





If I were going to pay, and Panda isn't free, I would buy Kaspersky. I
also have a lot of things like Malwarebytes, Spybot S&D, etc.


Panda is free.

On 2/20/2015 2:29 PM, A wrote:
Ron wrote:
On 2/20/2015 8:03 AM, A wrote:
Ron wrote:
On 2/19/2015 10:28 AM, A wrote:
Ron wrote:
On 2/19/2015 9:35 AM, A wrote:
Ron wrote:
On 2/19/2015 1:57 AM, Andy wrote:
You're first problem was you used McAfee software the company with
the
worst
reputation in the business.
so you're BS is you're own ignorance.
I wouldn't use McAfee products if you GAVE them to me.

McAfee SiteAdvisor was the first tool of it's kind AFAIK. And, it
was
also "recommended monthly in many pc magazines". Isn't that your
standard? So, I guess you are smarter that McAfee SiteAdvisor,
right?
Because you test THOUSANDS of websites like McAfee does to see if
they
are safe, right?



Ever hear of W.O.T.? **** McAfee.


If you read my post to Andy from yesterday you will see that I use
WOT
now. But several years ago, probably about 10 now, Site Advisor was
the
only tool of it's kind, that I know of. Now there are many tools that
rate websites.

When you have to have a special tool to uninstall a program, me no
like.
McAfee doesn't have a good reputation compared to other programs
and is
a resource hog. Free Avast is better.


As I've already mentioned, SiteAdvisor is a *browser add-on*.

Not relevant.

You said that you needed a "special tool" to remove McAfee. You don't
need a "special tool" to remove the browser add-on. So it's very
relevant to what is being discussed.

And IMO,
Panda is a better AV program than Avast.

LOL! That's funny!

Yeah, so funny that it's rated higher in protection and performance than
Avast.

http://www.av-test.org/en/antivirus/...ows/windows-8/

Avast wasn't tested.



Yes, it was.

On 2/20/2015 6:02 PM, Gene E. Bloch wrote:
On Fri, 20 Feb 2015 20:29:24 +0100, A wrote:
And IMO,
Panda is a better AV program than Avast.

LOL! That's funny!

Yeah, so funny that it's rated higher in protection and performance than
Avast.

http://www.av-test.org/en/antivirus/...ows/windows-8/

Avast wasn't tested.

Your remark made me curious enough to take a look. Panda wasn't even
very high among the ones that *were* tested :-)

You must be looking at alphabetical order. Click on protection.

Avast and Panda were both tested and Panda ranks higher.

On Fri, 20 Feb 2015 19:15:21 -0500, Ron wrote:

On 2/20/2015 6:02 PM, Gene E. Bloch wrote:
On Fri, 20 Feb 2015 20:29:24 +0100, A wrote:
And IMO,
Panda is a better AV program than Avast.

LOL! That's funny!

Yeah, so funny that it's rated higher in protection and performance than
Avast.

http://www.av-test.org/en/antivirus/...ows/windows-8/

Avast wasn't tested.

Your remark made me curious enough to take a look. Panda wasn't even
very high among the ones that *were* tested :-)

You must be looking at alphabetical order. Click on protection.

Avast and Panda were both tested and Panda ranks higher.

I clicked on all three ratings columns. That's how I reached my
conclusion. And I didn't see Avast.

Nice try...

--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)

On Fri, 20 Feb 2015 16:31:57 -0800, Gene E. Bloch wrote:

On Fri, 20 Feb 2015 19:15:21 -0500, Ron wrote:

On 2/20/2015 6:02 PM, Gene E. Bloch wrote:
On Fri, 20 Feb 2015 20:29:24 +0100, A wrote:
And IMO,
Panda is a better AV program than Avast.

LOL! That's funny!

Yeah, so funny that it's rated higher in protection and performance than
Avast.

http://www.av-test.org/en/antivirus/...ows/windows-8/

Avast wasn't tested.

Your remark made me curious enough to take a look. Panda wasn't even
very high among the ones that *were* tested :-)

You must be looking at alphabetical order. Click on protection.

Avast and Panda were both tested and Panda ranks higher.

I clicked on all three ratings columns. That's how I reached my
conclusion. And I didn't see Avast.

Nice try...

I see Avast now. How'd you do that? :-)

--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)

On 2/20/2015 7:31 PM, Gene E. Bloch wrote:
On Fri, 20 Feb 2015 19:15:21 -0500, Ron wrote:

On 2/20/2015 6:02 PM, Gene E. Bloch wrote:
On Fri, 20 Feb 2015 20:29:24 +0100, A wrote:
And IMO,
Panda is a better AV program than Avast.

LOL! That's funny!

Yeah, so funny that it's rated higher in protection and performance than
Avast.

http://www.av-test.org/en/antivirus/...ows/windows-8/

Avast wasn't tested.

Your remark made me curious enough to take a look. Panda wasn't even
very high among the ones that *were* tested :-)

You must be looking at alphabetical order. Click on protection.

Avast and Panda were both tested and Panda ranks higher.

I clicked on all three ratings columns. That's how I reached my
conclusion. And I didn't see Avast.

Nice try...


Nice try at what? Here is a screen shot...it's right below "360 Internet
Security 5.0". How can you miss it????

http://i62.tinypic.com/szhb41.jpg

Not tested???

http://www.av-test.org/en/antivirus/...--2015-144013/

On 2/20/2015 7:34 PM, Gene E. Bloch wrote:
On Fri, 20 Feb 2015 16:31:57 -0800, Gene E. Bloch wrote:

On Fri, 20 Feb 2015 19:15:21 -0500, Ron wrote:

On 2/20/2015 6:02 PM, Gene E. Bloch wrote:
On Fri, 20 Feb 2015 20:29:24 +0100, A wrote:
And IMO,
Panda is a better AV program than Avast.

LOL! That's funny!

Yeah, so funny that it's rated higher in protection and performance than
Avast.

http://www.av-test.org/en/antivirus/...ows/windows-8/

Avast wasn't tested.

Your remark made me curious enough to take a look. Panda wasn't even
very high among the ones that *were* tested :-)

You must be looking at alphabetical order. Click on protection.

Avast and Panda were both tested and Panda ranks higher.

I clicked on all three ratings columns. That's how I reached my
conclusion. And I didn't see Avast.

Nice try...

I see Avast now. How'd you do that? :-)


Disregard my other post then. lol

On Fri, 20 Feb 2015 19:46:04 -0500, Ron wrote:

On 2/20/2015 7:31 PM, Gene E. Bloch wrote:
On Fri, 20 Feb 2015 19:15:21 -0500, Ron wrote:

On 2/20/2015 6:02 PM, Gene E. Bloch wrote:
On Fri, 20 Feb 2015 20:29:24 +0100, A wrote:
And IMO,
Panda is a better AV program than Avast.

LOL! That's funny!

Yeah, so funny that it's rated higher in protection and performance than
Avast.

http://www.av-test.org/en/antivirus/...ows/windows-8/

Avast wasn't tested.

Your remark made me curious enough to take a look. Panda wasn't even
very high among the ones that *were* tested :-)

You must be looking at alphabetical order. Click on protection.

Avast and Panda were both tested and Panda ranks higher.

I clicked on all three ratings columns. That's how I reached my
conclusion. And I didn't see Avast.

Nice try...


Nice try at what? Here is a screen shot...it's right below "360 Internet
Security 5.0". How can you miss it????

http://i62.tinypic.com/szhb41.jpg

Not tested???

http://www.av-test.org/en/antivirus/...--2015-144013/

Yes, I screwed up there. But I still reached my conclusion about Panda's
ranking by looking at all three columns of rankings, which is why I
originally wrote "nice try".

The first column is Protection, where the first 10 programs earn 6
stars. Panda is 8th.

Of course, it's 8th because the sort within those 10 is alphabetic :-)

Anyway, that criterion doesn't make Panda stand out, since 10 of the 24
programs score 6 there, and 10 of the rest score 5.5 or 5. In the other
columns it's a good bit lower: 12th to 14th in Performance and 19th to
22nd in Usability.

I used ranges in the above paragraph because of that alphabetic subsort.
I also adjusted the numbers because their sorting doesn't move MSE from
the bottom, and MSE is equal to or better than PANDA in the last two
columns. Of course, MSE earns zero stars in Protection. At least it's
not negative :-)

None of that would make me reject Panda, since 6/6, 4.5/6, and 5/6
aren't bad scores.

--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)

On 2/20/2015 8:18 PM, Gene E. Bloch wrote:
On Fri, 20 Feb 2015 19:46:04 -0500, Ron wrote:

On 2/20/2015 7:31 PM, Gene E. Bloch wrote:
On Fri, 20 Feb 2015 19:15:21 -0500, Ron wrote:

On 2/20/2015 6:02 PM, Gene E. Bloch wrote:
On Fri, 20 Feb 2015 20:29:24 +0100, A wrote:
And IMO,
Panda is a better AV program than Avast.

LOL! That's funny!

Yeah, so funny that it's rated higher in protection and performance than
Avast.

http://www.av-test.org/en/antivirus/...ows/windows-8/

Avast wasn't tested.

Your remark made me curious enough to take a look. Panda wasn't even
very high among the ones that *were* tested :-)

You must be looking at alphabetical order. Click on protection.

Avast and Panda were both tested and Panda ranks higher.

I clicked on all three ratings columns. That's how I reached my
conclusion. And I didn't see Avast.

Nice try...


Nice try at what? Here is a screen shot...it's right below "360 Internet
Security 5.0". How can you miss it????

http://i62.tinypic.com/szhb41.jpg

Not tested???

http://www.av-test.org/en/antivirus/...--2015-144013/

Yes, I screwed up there. But I still reached my conclusion about Panda's
ranking by looking at all three columns of rankings, which is why I
originally wrote "nice try".

The first column is Protection, where the first 10 programs earn 6
stars. Panda is 8th.

Of course, it's 8th because the sort within those 10 is alphabetic :-)

Anyway, that criterion doesn't make Panda stand out, since 10 of the 24
programs score 6 there, and 10 of the rest score 5.5 or 5. In the other
columns it's a good bit lower: 12th to 14th in Performance and 19th to
22nd in Usability.

I used ranges in the above paragraph because of that alphabetic subsort.
I also adjusted the numbers because their sorting doesn't move MSE from
the bottom, and MSE is equal to or better than PANDA in the last two
columns. Of course, MSE earns zero stars in Protection. At least it's
not negative :-)

None of that would make me reject Panda, since 6/6, 4.5/6, and 5/6
aren't bad scores.


MSE is nothing but a baseline now. Micro$oft has even admitted that.

Some people are stuck in a "box", back to when AVG, Avast, and Avira
were the only free AV programs worth mentioning. Times are changing and
there are now many free AV programs that are excellent.