TSGL: Antispyware Win2K

Fri Mar 2 14:54:21 EST 2007

So my conclusion is, if you can't quite bring yourself to "cut the cord" at 
least go the free route and save some bucks.
----------------------------

I actually agree wholeheartedly - I often chuckle at the posts on here by 
people running 3 AV apps and seven bloatware antispyware apps when all they 
need to do is stop downloading some new kittens screensaver or stop using 
thirty seven different smiley emoticons in their email.

That being said, it's useful to at least run a spyware scan now and again - 
Hence my question about Windows 2000 compatibility.

Cheers,
Geoff Glave
Vancouver, Canada

>From: H Davis <hdavis1 at gmail.com>
>Reply-To: Tech Support Guy Mailing List <list at tsgserver.com>
>To: Tech Support Guy Mailing List <list at tsgserver.com>
>Subject: Re: TSGL: Antispyware Win2K
>Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2007 12:42:32 -0500
>
>This is a condensation of an article written by Mark Snyder which
>appeared in Neat Net Tricks Premium, issue 138, 2/28/07. There are no
>easily available archives for you to access the article and I was
>reluctant to copy it here completely but the preceding issue of NNT
>asked readers to forward a copy to their friends to increase readership.
>So I guess I'm stretching a point by forwarding this but it's
>interesting and applicable. I've shortened it a lot.
>
>You can subscribe to NNT at http://www.neatnettricks.com/ I think it's
>about $12/year.
>
>***************************
>Having already in these pages taken such controversial, i.e. "crazy"
>stances such as defending spam and even AOL(!), it seemed only expected
>that I might now suggest that antivirus and anti-spyware applications
>are not only unnecessary but a waste of your computer's resources. So,
>on September 2, 2006 I disabled all security applications with the
>exception of my firewall. I did not, however, put my $3,000.00 in
>computer equipment at risk simply to write an article for this
>publication nor did I undertake this action without serious
>consideration. It was simply that I was tired of the cost, both in
>dollars and computer resources that this security was exacting on me and
>my equipment. I suspected that much, if not all, of this security
>paranoia was being created by the very entities that claimed to prevent it.
>
>Do I still have a computer? Is it riddled nearly unusable with virus and
>spyware? Have I lost my mind? Read on and decide for yourself.
>
>Fear can also be used by companies (and governments) to support and
>promote actions and policies that otherwise might be ignored. For
>example, while many malware alarms are legitimate, I have the feeling
>that, all too often, the purpose of the warnings is to advertise the
>company's software by creating paranoia rather than as a public service.
>
>The Pew Group published a study in which 92 percent of 1,000 PC owners
>interviewed admitted to having various software programs installed on
>their computers at an average cost of $129.00 Of this same number, only
>seven percent could actually recall having had their computer infected
>before or since having installed the software. Furthermore, of those who
>reported using security software in an active (always on) mode, fewer
>than one percent reported having ever seen a warning that the software
>had stopped an attack. Yet, we all continue to purchase or download and
>install the latest most powerful antivirus programs, antispyware
>programs, anti-trojan programs, adware blocking programs, and on and on.
>In fact, not only do we install these programs on our computers but we
>are told that we must keep them running in "background" or "active
>mode," allow them to start as soon as our computer boots, and even allow
>the ability for them to "phone home" at will (a true security breach) so
>that they can automatically install updates. But even that is yet not
>enough. We find that we now must have a "layered defense," (something
>even I promoted two years ago in an article for this same publication)
>meaning that maybe having just one of each of these programs is not
>enough! And who is telling us this? For the most part, the makers of the
>software programs themselves.
>
>In recent years, there has been a lot of debate over whether there is
>any need to run antispyware applications or even an antivirus program.
>In fact, according to the well-respected security expert George Ou,
>"Running an antivirus program on a personal computer is like having a
>bomb squad inspect a suspicious package inside the house right next to
>you." He continues, "Running antivirus or third party security software
>such as antispyware programs and firewalls makes you even less safe!"
>http://blogs.zdnet.com/OU/?p=234&tag=nl.e622 In this same article, Mr.
>Ou claims to have run personal computers for over fifteen years using
>some form or another of Windows and has never had a virus on his
>computer. He claims that even his family computer runs without an
>antivirus or antispyware program and has never experienced any problems.
>His findings are backed up by Adrian Kingsley- Hughes, writing in the
>November 15, 2006 issue of Zdnet. Mr. Kingsley-Hughes argues that an
>over- reliance on security software (which, as you may have by now
>concluded if you have read this far, is not all that secure) creates
>"sloppy thinking". Using "common sense", he says, will go much further
>in protecting your computer than relying on software programs.
>
>I agree. It is well known that most true computer experts and IT
>professionals do not use security software as such. They have long known
>that the disease is worse than the cure and that the way to protect your
>computer is by securing it through such means as limiting administrative
>rights, etc. In a quick and admittedly unscientific survey that I took
>for this article, only two out of 16 IT professionals and three out of
>22 qualified experts I contacted use any type of antivirus or
>antispyware programs running on their home computers. This is not to say
>that they do not use programs to scan for spyware or viruses; but rather
>than running them actively, they use them only on demand to manually
>scan. All admitted that the drain on computer resources far outweighs
>any potential benefit received from having these programs running in the
>background and increasing the potential threats to their systems.
>
>So, armed with all of the above information, I disabled all of my many
>security programs other than my firewall on September 2, 2006. As of
>this date, January 4, 2007, they are still disabled. I surfed the Web as
>much as I always do, visited the same type of sites that I always do,
>downloaded around thirty-five programs, many for future NNT reviews but
>also a large number of freeware programs. I used my computer no
>differently than I ever do. I am using a DSL connection and am on line
>24/7, and generally on the Internet an average of 7 hours per day. The
>only disclaimer I do need to make is that I do not use peer-to-peer file
>sharing programs nor am I a connoisseur of pornography, both types of
>computer use known to increase one's risk of infection. I scanned my
>computer once a week for viruses using AVG 7.5 and scanned for spyware
>once a week using A Squared, Ewido, CounterSpy, Spyware Doctor,
>ZeroSpyware, and SpySweeper, simply to make sure that I could report my
>results as honestly and thoroughly as possible. In four months of use I
>found zero viruses, and the only spyware discovered was an occasional
>tracking cookie (Atwola and About.com) which were easily removed. That's
>it. Period. What I did find, however, was that by not having these
>security programs load at start-up my boot time decreased from
>approximately 107 seconds to 33 seconds and my computer responded as if
>I had just doubled my CPU and RAM. RAM usage alone dropped by 20 percent
>and on my machine that was like installing another 200MB of RAM!
>
>Do I recommend that each of you reading this do likewise and disable all
>of your security software? That is for you to decide.
>********************************************
>
>I share Snyder's opinion and have a NAT router (includes a hardware
>firewall function) for my Internet connection and run the free Zone
>Alarm firewall on each machine on the network. But I still use AVG free
>antivirus and Windows Defender, also free, as my only active,
>continuously running "anti" ware on each machine. I scan occassionally
>with AdAware, Spybot and AVG AntiSpyware and can't remember the last
>time I saw any kind of alert except tracking cookies. And one of the
>machines on my network is still running XP, SP1 with NO updates since it
>was bought. We refer to it around here as "the grand experiment".
>
>So my conclusion is, if you can't quite bring yourself to "cut the cord"
>at least go the free route and save some bucks.
>
>H Davis
>
>Geoff Glave wrote:
> > Hi Everyone,
> >
> > Just wondering what anti-spyware app people are liking for Windows
> > 2000 these days? I was a big fan of MS-AS & then defender, but they
> > don't support Win2K any more, so I'm looking for suggestions.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Geoff Glave
> > Vancouver, Canada
> >
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > Don't waste time standing in line---try shopping online. Visit
> > Sympatico / MSN Shopping today! http://shopping.sympatico.msn.ca
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Tech Support Guy Mailing List
> > http://www.tsgserver.com/list/
> >
>
>--
>H Davis   hdavis1 at gmail.com
>
>_______________________________________________
>Tech Support Guy Mailing List
>http://www.tsgserver.com/list/

_________________________________________________________________
Find out the restaurants participating in Winterlicious 
http://local.live.com/default.aspx?v=2&cp=43.658648~-79.383962&style=r&lvl=15&tilt=-90&dir=0&alt=-1000&scene=3702663&cid=7ABE80D1746919B4!1329 
>From January 26 to February 8, 2007