Quantcast

Jump to content


Photo

Best security software??


  • Please log in to reply
71 replies to this topic

#1 Lawivido

Lawivido
  • iOS Hacker

  • 2,018 posts


Users Awards

Posted 28 September 2009 - 12:59 AM

Just got a new laptop, what should I get to have some decent protection?

#2 jcrboy

jcrboy
  • Oh shit there's a thing here

  • 6,953 posts


Users Awards

Posted 28 September 2009 - 01:56 AM

If you want cheap and reliable, and you're not a fan of clicking and installing random things, try having nothing (except ad-aware and spybot)

I've been using this system for a few years on my laptop and have gotten by with just a few minor spyware/adware infestations

#3 Waser Lave

Waser Lave

  • 25,516 posts


Users Awards

Posted 28 September 2009 - 03:32 AM

I just use AVG and ZoneAlarm Pro, then things like Hijack This, Spybot S&D, Ad-Aware when needed. No idea if they're the best but they work fine for my purposes anyway.

#4 Sasha

Sasha
  • 633 posts

Posted 28 September 2009 - 03:58 AM

ESET Smart Security or ESET Antivirus. They're really reliable.

Edited by Sasha, 28 September 2009 - 06:31 AM.


#5 iargue

iargue
  • 10,048 posts


Users Awards

Posted 28 September 2009 - 05:43 AM

ESET Home Security or ESET Antivirus. They're really reliable.


This.


Eset will be great because its fast, and reliable. No system slow down, and no false positives. If it says its a virus, 93% of the time it is a virus.

I suggest just going with the Antivirus, you wont need a firewall or anything.


Dont get Ad-Aware, it used to be good, but now its crap. Spybot/Malwarebytes/Combofix/Superantispyware will handle all other attacks more then perfectly, but they dont run on their own unless you buy them.

#6 Adam

Adam
  • Coffee God


  • 4,348 posts


Users Awards

Posted 28 September 2009 - 06:55 AM

This.


Eset will be great because its fast, and reliable. No system slow down, and no false positives. If it says its a virus, 93% of the time it is a virus.

I suggest just going with the Antivirus, you wont need a firewall or anything.


Dont get Ad-Aware, it used to be good, but now its crap. Spybot/Malwarebytes/Combofix/Superantispyware will handle all other attacks more then perfectly, but they dont run on their own unless you buy them.


I personally have Nod32 Smart Security and I love it, everything he said is correct except the system slow down. If your AV/SS has a scheduler it may have a thing like "System Startup Scan". You want to turn that if because it will cause a great amount of slow down when your computer tries to load the startup files and such. Otherwise eset nod 32 is a great..find.

#7 Cyo

Cyo
  • Pauly D

  • 2,559 posts


Users Awards

Posted 28 September 2009 - 09:15 AM

common sense 2009

#8 DiLeMa

DiLeMa
  • 166 posts

Posted 28 September 2009 - 10:35 AM

I personally use Kaspersky Internet Security 2009 and never have any problems. Except that its firewall blocks my xbox 360 from my computer so I cant stream movies/music. Even in the firewall settings I have the xbox 360 allowed. :(

#9 iargue

iargue
  • 10,048 posts


Users Awards

Posted 28 September 2009 - 12:16 PM

I personally use Kaspersky Internet Security 2009 and never have any problems. Except that its firewall blocks my xbox 360 from my computer so I cant stream movies/music. Even in the firewall settings I have the xbox 360 allowed. :(



I would avoid Internet Security suite packages at all cost. Seriously, dont let you antivirus try to do more then it is supposed to. Toolbars do NOTHING and slow down you computer, link scanning just fucks your network, and alot of other issues can be caused with program compatitility. Not to mention, lots and lots of wasted resources.


This topic should be closed as the best have been given, and I dont want anyone to read this and get false information :(

common sense 2009



Only problem is that it isnt sold in stores :(

#10 Bryan

Bryan
  • 4,107 posts

Posted 28 September 2009 - 03:02 PM

AVG, Spybot Search & Destroy, Hi-Jack This & Ad-Aware SE.

If you're lazy, Kaspersky if the most reliable software I've found in stores.

#11 iargue

iargue
  • 10,048 posts


Users Awards

Posted 28 September 2009 - 03:37 PM

AVG, Spybot Search & Destroy, Hi-Jack This & Ad-Aware SE.

If you're lazy, Kaspersky if the most reliable software I've found in stores.


Ad-Aware = bad
Avg = bad
Hi-Jack this = not security software (Its recovery software)

#12 Bryan

Bryan
  • 4,107 posts

Posted 28 September 2009 - 03:50 PM

Ad-Aware = bad
Avg = bad
Hi-Jack this = not security software (Its recovery software)

This could've been said before, as Laser posted the same software. However, you seem to have a ridiculously unfounded need to dispute anything I post, regardless of how right I may be.

Ad-Aware is fantastic and always has been. AVG is a free virus protection that can be configured to do minimal things and is updated frequently. Hi-Jack This is for all things that manage to get through. To be honest, any competent user can run without a virus protection program on any operating system and be perfectly fine.

#13 iargue

iargue
  • 10,048 posts


Users Awards

Posted 28 September 2009 - 10:02 PM

This could've been said before, as Laser posted the same software. However, you seem to have a ridiculously unfounded need to dispute anything I post, regardless of how right I may be.

Ad-Aware is fantastic and always has been. AVG is a free virus protection that can be configured to do minimal things and is updated frequently. Hi-Jack This is for all things that manage to get through. To be honest, any competent user can run without a virus protection program on any operating system and be perfectly fine.



No. Adware has become fail. It detects less then optimal amounts of adware, doesnt catch tojans/spyware. And has become bloated. I bet a hundred dollars I can infect any system with just that setup.

Neither AVG or Adaware can even handle rogue antivirus programs which is where 80% of attacks are aimed at now.

I only refuted what you said because you continued to post, even after I posted what he should be using. I fix atleast 5 computers infected with virus's EVERYDAY. I know whats effective and what isnt.

Avg also runs 6-8 processes, adds a toolbar, and scans links ahead of time. All of that is VERY BAD. Malwarebytes is free, and doesnt run any processes.

Edited by iargue, 28 September 2009 - 10:05 PM.


#14 Waser Lave

Waser Lave

  • 25,516 posts


Users Awards

Posted 28 September 2009 - 10:17 PM

No. Adware has become fail. It detects less then optimal amounts of adware, doesnt catch tojans/spyware. And has become bloated. I bet a hundred dollars I can infect any system with just that setup.

Neither AVG or Adaware can even handle rogue antivirus programs which is where 80% of attacks are aimed at now.

I only refuted what you said because you continued to post, even after I posted what he should be using. I fix atleast 5 computers infected with virus's EVERYDAY. I know whats effective and what isnt.

Avg also runs 6-8 processes, adds a toolbar, and scans links ahead of time. All of that is VERY BAD. Malwarebytes is free, and doesnt run any processes.


Any anti-virus software is only as good as the person using the computer in question. Anybody who is stupid enough to download lots of rogue shit deserves to get infected but for the vast majority of people programs like AVG are perfectly fine. And the features of AVG which you mentioned aren't as bad as you make them seem, firstly you can turn off the toolbar and link scanner if you don't want them and the 6 AVG processes use minimal amounts of memory, at the moment mine are using a grand total of about 5,000k, even Task Manager uses more than that...

#15 iargue

iargue
  • 10,048 posts


Users Awards

Posted 28 September 2009 - 10:34 PM

Any anti-virus software is only as good as the person using the computer in question. Anybody who is stupid enough to download lots of rogue shit deserves to get infected but for the vast majority of people programs like AVG are perfectly fine. And the features of AVG which you mentioned aren't as bad as you make them seem, firstly you can turn off the toolbar and link scanner if you don't want them and the 6 AVG processes use minimal amounts of memory, at the moment mine are using a grand total of about 5,000k, even Task Manager uses more than that...



Maybe on some specfic system builds. I've seend alot of system builds where AVG freaks out and puts the SYSTEM task at 50-60& cpu usage, and 60k-100k memory usage, which is remedied by removing avg and giving it something else.

Now, I do agree its okay for normal users, I mean, I put it on customers computer if they dont want to pay for an antivirus, because atleast its something, but its scan times suck, its detection is pretty low, and under load, it sucks resources. And given all of that, the topic says, "Best Security Software" not, "Mediocure Security Software"

#16 Bryan

Bryan
  • 4,107 posts

Posted 28 September 2009 - 11:20 PM

Maybe on some specfic system builds. I've seend alot of system builds where AVG freaks out and puts the SYSTEM task at 50-60& cpu usage, and 60k-100k memory usage, which is remedied by removing avg and giving it something else.

Now, I do agree its okay for normal users, I mean, I put it on customers computer if they dont want to pay for an antivirus, because atleast its something, but its scan times suck, its detection is pretty low, and under load, it sucks resources. And given all of that, the topic says, "Best Security Software" not, "Mediocure Security Software"

So I'm not supposed to post because your word is absolute? I've also seen a lot of system builds where Norton, Kaspersky & McAfee bog the system and put it to 100% usage. To give a universal fix for all computers is something that cannot be done. You, moreso than others, should know this as fact. All computers are different and can use different methods to accomplish the same thing. You may have a 'universal' program that can always remedy X, but what happens when X merges with Y? Always account for random variables.

You also make the assumption that the best for you is the best for others. You should also know it's true. For instance, the best sex in my lifetime could've been a threesome, yours however was probably with a photo of your mother half naked in a bathing suit, sitting next to a bottle of jergens with a box of tissues and Marvin Gaye in the background. See, lookie there, your best, and my best are different. We have dissenting opinions? It's up to the original poster to decide what is 'best'. What is good for normal users may be 'best' for normal users. That's why the software is there in the first place.

#17 iargue

iargue
  • 10,048 posts


Users Awards

Posted 29 September 2009 - 09:27 AM

So I'm not supposed to post because your word is absolute? I've also seen a lot of system builds where Norton, Kaspersky & McAfee bog the system and put it to 100% usage. To give a universal fix for all computers is something that cannot be done. You, moreso than others, should know this as fact. All computers are different and can use different methods to accomplish the same thing. You may have a 'universal' program that can always remedy X, but what happens when X merges with Y? Always account for random variables.

You also make the assumption that the best for you is the best for others. You should also know it's true. For instance, the best sex in my lifetime could've been a threesome, yours however was probably with a photo of your mother half naked in a bathing suit, sitting next to a bottle of jergens with a box of tissues and Marvin Gaye in the background. See, lookie there, your best, and my best are different. We have dissenting opinions? It's up to the original poster to decide what is 'best'. What is good for normal users may be 'best' for normal users. That's why the software is there in the first place.



First. I never once suggest Norton, Kaspersky or Mcaffe. They all fucking slow and suggested agains them. When it comes to security, I know a shit load more then you do, and as I have already proved because your not refuting any of my programs, or proving that yours are better then mine.

I've done systems where x,y, and m are all merged. I've cleaned systems that have over a thousand infections using the tools I mentioned. I've tested them on a daily basis's for YEARS. and they have never let me down.

And, I like how you just resort to insulting me, rather then trying to defend what you posted. Whats best with computers is not a matter of opinion anymore. 90% of the antivirus programs now suck horribly, and the few decent ones you find, are overwhelmed by Nod32.

#18 Cyo

Cyo
  • Pauly D

  • 2,559 posts


Users Awards

Posted 29 September 2009 - 11:33 AM

Kaspersky isn't that CPU intensive anymore

#19 Bryan

Bryan
  • 4,107 posts

Posted 29 September 2009 - 11:39 AM

First. I never once suggest Norton, Kaspersky or Mcaffe. They all fucking slow and suggested agains them. When it comes to security, I know a shit load more then you do, and as I have already proved because your not refuting any of my programs, or proving that yours are better then mine.

I've done systems where x,y, and m are all merged. I've cleaned systems that have over a thousand infections using the tools I mentioned. I've tested them on a daily basis's for YEARS. and they have never let me down.

And, I like how you just resort to insulting me, rather then trying to defend what you posted. Whats best with computers is not a matter of opinion anymore. 90% of the antivirus programs now suck horribly, and the few decent ones you find, are overwhelmed by Nod32.

My point was that all programs have issues. When it comes to security, you claim to know more than me. All you do is spew out nonsense, say you have been doing it for years and then make idiotic points. You're stupid if you think that I need to refute your programs when it's all a matter of opinion. My whole point was that what is best for you is not best for others, as I've told you that numerous times. I've worked IT, I also work for the Apple Store. I'm also going to be opening up my own branch of IT for the state of Arizona for the company that I used to work for. I don't care what you do, it doesn't make you right. If a photographer were to tell me that Adobe Photoshop is the best program out for me, by your logic, I should be listening to every word he says. However, what if I'm a hobbyist? A so-called 'normal' user. To be honest, I don't need the 'power' and functions that Photoshop provides, and I'm a lot happier using Aperture on the Mac. You, the Photographer (or the IT), says that Photoshop is the best. I, the consumer, disagree because Aperture is more asthetically pleasing and easier to use. Therefore, your best is not my best.

What's best with anything will ALWAYS be a matter of opinion. The word 'best' is based off opinion. It's a superlative defined as 'interpreted most favorably'. I have no need to refute your software as I never made the claim that those didn't work. I don't need to defend what I post because it's an OPINION that has a sole purpose of informing the original poster other programs that are out there. Also, I didn't resort to insulting you, you're the one who decided to say 'morons talking about hardware' in your other post, because you can't grasp the English language tight enough to make a valid point.

What you seem to lack horribly, iargue, is a sense of business. Norton and Kaspersky are two of the most sold antivirus programs in the world. If they weren't the 'best' for the people that were using them, then they wouldn't sell at all. There may be more efficient programs, there may be programs that have more/less features but in the end, there's an element of that program that makes users spend ridiculous amounts of money on it. You're just too thick to see it.

#20 iargue

iargue
  • 10,048 posts


Users Awards

Posted 29 September 2009 - 03:17 PM

My point was that all programs have issues. When it comes to security, you claim to know more than me. All you do is spew out nonsense, say you have been doing it for years and then make idiotic points. You're stupid if you think that I need to refute your programs when it's all a matter of opinion. My whole point was that what is best for you is not best for others, as I've told you that numerous times. I've worked IT, I also work for the Apple Store. I'm also going to be opening up my own branch of IT for the state of Arizona for the company that I used to work for. I don't care what you do, it doesn't make you right. If a photographer were to tell me that Adobe Photoshop is the best program out for me, by your logic, I should be listening to every word he says. However, what if I'm a hobbyist? A so-called 'normal' user. To be honest, I don't need the 'power' and functions that Photoshop provides, and I'm a lot happier using Aperture on the Mac. You, the Photographer (or the IT), says that Photoshop is the best. I, the consumer, disagree because Aperture is more asthetically pleasing and easier to use. Therefore, your best is not my best.

What's best with anything will ALWAYS be a matter of opinion. The word 'best' is based off opinion. It's a superlative defined as 'interpreted most favorably'. I have no need to refute your software as I never made the claim that those didn't work. I don't need to defend what I post because it's an OPINION that has a sole purpose of informing the original poster other programs that are out there. Also, I didn't resort to insulting you, you're the one who decided to say 'morons talking about hardware' in your other post, because you can't grasp the English language tight enough to make a valid point.

What you seem to lack horribly, iargue, is a sense of business. Norton and Kaspersky are two of the most sold antivirus programs in the world. If they weren't the 'best' for the people that were using them, then they wouldn't sell at all. There may be more efficient programs, there may be programs that have more/less features but in the end, there's an element of that program that makes users spend ridiculous amounts of money on it. You're just too thick to see it.


Hahahahahahahaha. So, before your arguing that Apple is better then Microsoft, and now your going to pull the card that being the most popular is better?

And, why would you even pull the Apple computer store card, if it doesnt help you at all?

When it comes to security, best isn't a fucking opinion. Norton is a 600mb file, runs 12 process's, and DETECTS LOGMEIN AS A VIRUS. If you consider that anywhere decent, I beg you to just quit your job. For some things, you can pick a program that you think is the best, like between Photoshop programs, or your IRC client. I agree, lots of them can be opinion based. But not security software. The best isnt about what you like to use, the best is about what Catches the most virus's, and slows down your computer the least. If your antivirus can catch 100% of the virus's but slows your system 30%, you might not want it, but if my antivirus catches 89% of the virus's, and slows my computer download less then 3%. My antivirus would be much much better. There are two deciding factors when it comes to security. Protection, and convenience. If you work in computer security, you would know this by now, I would hope. Security is all about preventing as much bad stuff as possible, while inconveniencing people as little as possible.

Here your telling me a spew out "nonesense", but you have'nt refuted anything that I have said as being the best.

#21 Bryan

Bryan
  • 4,107 posts

Posted 30 September 2009 - 12:52 AM

Hahahahahahahaha. So, before your arguing that Apple is better then Microsoft, and now your going to pull the card that being the most popular is better?

And, why would you even pull the Apple computer store card, if it doesnt help you at all?

When it comes to security, best isn't a fucking opinion. Norton is a 600mb file, runs 12 process's, and DETECTS LOGMEIN AS A VIRUS. If you consider that anywhere decent, I beg you to just quit your job. For some things, you can pick a program that you think is the best, like between Photoshop programs, or your IRC client. I agree, lots of them can be opinion based. But not security software. The best isnt about what you like to use, the best is about what Catches the most virus's, and slows down your computer the least. If your antivirus can catch 100% of the virus's but slows your system 30%, you might not want it, but if my antivirus catches 89% of the virus's, and slows my computer download less then 3%. My antivirus would be much much better. There are two deciding factors when it comes to security. Protection, and convenience. If you work in computer security, you would know this by now, I would hope. Security is all about preventing as much bad stuff as possible, while inconveniencing people as little as possible.

Here your telling me a spew out "nonesense", but you have'nt refuted anything that I have said as being the best.

The word best is always an opinion. I just told you in my previous post. Whether it's security or not.

I also never mentioned anything was better, you just assume it is. I stated that I gave the original poster a set of options that I had agreement with that was proficient for use. Also, please for the love of god, it's you're.

You state that, 'the best is about what Catches the most viruses' but then go on to argue that efficiency and prevention synergy is what security is all about. I may be of the opinion that I don't care what speed my computer runs at. I may have certain documents on my computer that I want to make sure is nearly impossible for anyone to gather, regardless of the resources. My computer is used solely for that purpose and I'm going to want the most amount of prevention I can get, regardless of my efficiency. However, I can also be a college student, wanting decent protection against most spyware in porn sites and prevention of P2P spread viruses, but with a minimal size footprint in memory and processing. Therefore, the best of the first scenario is completely different from the best in the second scenario. Ergo, your statement is false, further so my original point is reinforced.

Here again you spew out more nonsense (try and use proper spelling when quoting please). I'm not refuting your statement that your software is the best. I am making your statement completely invalid, as the best for you is not the best for everyone else. I am simply giving the original poster more options so that they may personally decide what is best for them.

Please, do try to think before you post, you're starting to sound like a prerecorded generalized argument, merely miming the same statements epeatedly when I'm clearly not discussing your points.

#22 iargue

iargue
  • 10,048 posts


Users Awards

Posted 30 September 2009 - 04:40 AM

You state that, 'the best is about what Catches the most viruses' but then go on to argue that efficiency and prevention synergy is what security is all about. I may be of the opinion that I don't care what speed my computer runs at. I may have certain documents on my computer that I want to make sure is nearly impossible for anyone to gather, regardless of the resources. My computer is used solely for that purpose and I'm going to want the most amount of prevention I can get, regardless of my efficiency. However, I can also be a college student, wanting decent protection against most spyware in porn sites and prevention of P2P spread viruses, but with a minimal size footprint in memory and processing. Therefore, the best of the first scenario is completely different from the best in the second scenario. Ergo, your statement is false, further so my original point is reinforced.



Except Nod32 CATCHES THE MOST VIRUS'S and USES THE SMALLEST FINGERPRINT. Combofix catches things AVG/Ad-ware has never even heard of, and so does Malwarebytes. There not even a competition. If you want any sort of protection against things that are a threat today, you need to get a program that actually does something.

Unless your a big business, you would even do without Virus Protection. Anythin you download of the internet, will be caught by MalwareBytes/Combofix, and if its not, then you can simply use an Online scanner.

#23 Bryan

Bryan
  • 4,107 posts

Posted 30 September 2009 - 02:33 PM

Except Nod32 CATCHES THE MOST VIRUS'S and USES THE SMALLEST FINGERPRINT. Combofix catches things AVG/Ad-ware has never even heard of, and so does Malwarebytes. There not even a competition. If you want any sort of protection against things that are a threat today, you need to get a program that actually does something.

Unless your a big business, you would even do without Virus Protection. Anythin you download of the internet, will be caught by MalwareBytes/Combofix, and if its not, then you can simply use an Online scanner.

Again I'm going to say that you should not merely pick out a paragraph to argue against. I put them there as they are separate points, you should argue against all. I just gave you an example where all your points were wrong, yet you still argue for some program. Get it through your head, no matter what is more efficient, no matter what catches the most viruses, no matter what the competition, the BEST IS A MATTER OF OPINION.

Then you further go on to say that anything other than a big business doesn't need anything and that a scanner online works. Wouldn't your recommendations earlier render that statement invalid? Why would you argue so strongly that security matters and is the best and then go on to say that you don't need anything. Let me give you an example again, so that you can understand my point.

Person A's Scenario: Family owned computer. Single mother, 30, has her two children: 6 and 10 on the computer. She has parental settings enforced by her antivirus program. We sell her Norton Antivirus, as she uses this until her youngest is 18 (Yes, believe it or not people do use computers for that long). She never has a virus and the program does EXACTLY WHAT SHE WANTS. She, then, is under the impression that her program is the best, whether it be from ignorance or sole use of said program. Her 'best' is completely different from your 'best', but she is correct in every way when she says that Norton Antivirus is the best. Why? Because best is an opinion.

Person B's Scenario: Family owned computer. Single dad, 28, has his two boys: 14 and 16 on the computer. He has no parental settings, uses Panda Antivirus. Kids look at porn, dad looks at fetish sites and cybers at random on MSN. He gets worms, he gets malware he gets trojans. He doesn't like Panda Antivirus, it is not his 'best'. We sell him Kaspersky Antivirus. Kids and dad are both more alert on computer after viruses, little bit safer. Nothing happens at all for next 6 years. Kaspersky is their 'best' security software because of their experience.

Now, in both of these scenarios you would claim that the users are wrong. You would state that your program is the best. The word best is a matter of opinion, and these two scenarios have the users basing opinion off life experience.

Also, in case you really don't understand, the simplest example is Pizza. Find one place on the internet where you can agree with 10% about what the best Pizza is. Every person looks for different things, there is no universal best. Wake up, accept that and maybe you'll get somewhere in life.

#24 Eskimo

Eskimo
  • 75 posts

Posted 05 October 2009 - 04:44 AM

Get yourself No Script on Firefox. Depending on what you mean when you say security, make use of the Vidalia Bundle (Tor is awesome) & Peer Guardian for your p2p. I'm a fan of McAfee, but my wife says good things about Avast. The best thing you can do as far as security is concerned is exercise common sense.

#25 iargue

iargue
  • 10,048 posts


Users Awards

Posted 05 October 2009 - 02:07 PM

Again I'm going to say that you should not merely pick out a paragraph to argue against. I put them there as they are separate points, you should argue against all. I just gave you an example where all your points were wrong, yet you still argue for some program. Get it through your head, no matter what is more efficient, no matter what catches the most viruses, no matter what the competition, the BEST IS A MATTER OF OPINION.

Then you further go on to say that anything other than a big business doesn't need anything and that a scanner online works. Wouldn't your recommendations earlier render that statement invalid? Why would you argue so strongly that security matters and is the best and then go on to say that you don't need anything. Let me give you an example again, so that you can understand my point.

Person A's Scenario: Family owned computer. Single mother, 30, has her two children: 6 and 10 on the computer. She has parental settings enforced by her antivirus program. We sell her Norton Antivirus, as she uses this until her youngest is 18 (Yes, believe it or not people do use computers for that long). She never has a virus and the program does EXACTLY WHAT SHE WANTS. She, then, is under the impression that her program is the best, whether it be from ignorance or sole use of said program. Her 'best' is completely different from your 'best', but she is correct in every way when she says that Norton Antivirus is the best. Why? Because best is an opinion.

Person B's Scenario: Family owned computer. Single dad, 28, has his two boys: 14 and 16 on the computer. He has no parental settings, uses Panda Antivirus. Kids look at porn, dad looks at fetish sites and cybers at random on MSN. He gets worms, he gets malware he gets trojans. He doesn't like Panda Antivirus, it is not his 'best'. We sell him Kaspersky Antivirus. Kids and dad are both more alert on computer after viruses, little bit safer. Nothing happens at all for next 6 years. Kaspersky is their 'best' security software because of their experience.

Now, in both of these scenarios you would claim that the users are wrong. You would state that your program is the best. The word best is a matter of opinion, and these two scenarios have the users basing opinion off life experience.

Also, in case you really don't understand, the simplest example is Pizza. Find one place on the internet where you can agree with 10% about what the best Pizza is. Every person looks for different things, there is no universal best. Wake up, accept that and maybe you'll get somewhere in life.



The ideal that best is an opinion in security is what the problem is with Security. Sure, in their opinion, it is the best, but they can get fucked up really easy. If they want the best security software out their, without having used any before, its about stastics. I will accept that best can be an opinion, and can be for some things, like for OS's, and for Hardware (Intel Vs amd) because they both do the same thing. But, when dealing with security, some things just don't do anything at all, others even fuck up your computer. I'm not going to let someone ask for advice, and then follow advice that caused their computer to be fucked hard core. If he wants what is best, he should be given the stasticially best software out their. The one with the most catches, least false positives, and least system slowdown. Thats Nod32.

All pizza you get will be the same thing with just a different flavor, so it is just a matter of opinion.


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users