Main Area and Open Discussion > General Software Discussion
How necessary is the UAC in Windows 7?
Stoic Joker:
I haven't found that the security software I currently use "only serve to slow the machine down (typically to a crawl)." Not at all. My computer is delightfully fast and responsive. And WinPatrol Plus is not on my machine "just to monitor System files." I use it primarily for a variety of other functions; it happens to also offer the option of protecting the Internet HOSTS and key System files. Again, I haven't noticed that selecting this option negatively affects the performance of my computer.-cyberdiva (August 03, 2011, 07:40 AM)
--- End quote ---
Okay, I was being a bit harsh with the broad brush ... But I'm sure you've seen the type of baby-sitter security suite infested machine I was eluding to. I just wasted 6 hours onsite today because of a client's machine that was a few generations past it's prime, that had a full suite of crippleware running at full blast on it. There is never a truly effective way of disabling these silly things ... So you're always stuck with it unless you're willing to eat the time to remove and reinstall it.
Fortunately for the client it was a contract job. Or the bill would have been close to the price of a decent new machine. I got home an hour late, and the job still ain't done. *Joy*...
:D
db90h:
I have not read this whole thread, so forgive me if I am repeating things others have said, or am just simply talking more than I listen.
Security software eating system resources is a pet peeve of mine. The bitter irony is that most of the time it does NO GOOD anyway, else all these people wouldn't be getting infested with malware. Think about it -- has the malware problem been 'abated' in any way by all these security solutions? Nope.
The #1 mistake novices make is installing more than one security suite. That is a huge no-no. It does NOT make you doubly protected. It makes you doubly slow, and doubly prone to potential strange problems.
My recommendation to all users, novices and advanced, is to adopt Microsoft Security Essentials. Since I am the author of an EXE compressor that is sadly abused by malware authors at times (despite my best efforts), I keep in touch with the security companies to help them combat this problem by 'scanning inside' compressed EXEs. I have really liked what I've heard from the PM for Security Essentials at Microsoft. They are doing it right -- trying to avoid the *very problematic* issue of false positives, while keeping people protected and using *minimal* system resources. And you know if anyone can make sure things are done as efficiently as possible on Windows, it will be Microsoft.
Security Essentials is 100% free and has just a few options. The options it has are the *critical ones* though. You can disable real-time scanning (the biggest impact on system performance), or tune it down to a number of different levels. You can exclude specified paths or file types. Perfect. They know this is needed to keep systems running optimally. You need to tell it to scan the risky stuff (such as incoming downloads and attachments, or removable media) .. and leave the rest of the system alone. After all, while it is theoretically more secure to keep rescanning every darn file that is opened, it is a bit absurd. Tune it down to only scan the incoming files, and be careful -- and you're gonna be ok in most cases.
I do not want to 'pick favorites' since I also deal with other companies, so I must also mention that if you want more ADVANCED controls and need even more enhanced security, the other companies -- you know the names (list removed as I feared I'd leave somebody out) --are getting better and constantly improving their software. They are also aware that they need to 'speed things up' and have offered similar options to help users do that through more selective real-time scanning.
So, that's my recommendation on the security products part of this discussion... which seems wholly OT, but ....
cranioscopical:
which seems wholly OT, but ....
-db90h (August 03, 2011, 07:29 PM)
--- End quote ---
.... worth reading. Thanks for the input.
Carol Haynes:
so forgive me if I am repeating things others have said,
-db90h (August 03, 2011, 07:29 PM)
--- End quote ---
That's OK - if it is worth saying it is probably worth SHOUTING more than once.
Actually I pretty much agree with you on security software and now I am mostly recommending to clinets that they use Microsoft Security Essentials and Windows Firewall.
Given that most people don't really know what they are doing I just tell them to install and forget about it (leaving default settings).
For the most part this is at least as effective as the well known security brands.
I spend a fair amount of my week clearing out malware - almost invariably they have a big name security suite (or two or even three) installed and they simply don't protect people any more - at least not effectively enough to be worth the performance hit.
The only solution to this is common sense and education - neither of which are in abundance in the real world for the average user - esp. if they have kids using their computer too!
40hz:
+1
For the non-tech users, I see more problems caused by security suites than I do by malware.
As Carol recommends, just install Microsoft Security Essentials, use Windows' built-in firewall, stay caught up with your system updates - and be done with it. That and a little common sense about what attachments you open and what software you install will more than suffice for 99.9% of all users. And it will do so without the headaches 3rd-party security suites can cause.
Time to stop the insanity.
Take the money you save by not purchasing Norton or McAfee and buy yourself a nice little USB hard drive so you can finally start doing those backups you keep putting off. 8)
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version