Who here does NOT use any type of anti-virus or spyware? (windows users only)

No, but I don't have to worry about it once the definitions get loaded- and you always will.
 
TeeJayHoward said:
You're right. A new killer virus may come out soon. Of course, when it does, anti-virus software will take a while to catch up anyway. So even your expensive corporate anti-virus software won't help you. You'll be every bit as vurnerable as I am now. Makes you feel all warm and fuzzy, no?
Click to expand...
You're "logic" gets even worse. This turned into a gun fight, and you sire, have been out of ammo for quite some time.

If you are going to go so far and admit that a person is vulnerable to a new virus before the definitions catch up....how do you honestly sit there and say it's okay to go without PROTECTION at all? You're either continuing this argument out of sheer insanity, or you are the most illogical person ever to enter these boards?
 
zacdl said:
get shot in the foot, either.
Click to expand...
You should be careful. There's already been on person who shot themselves in the foot in this thread. Just see above.

You're in danger until your software is updated....but there's no danger to begin with. :rolleyes:
 
zacdl said:
My track record of hospital stays is pretty good as well- doesn't mean I can't get hit by a car, come down with the flu, or get shot in the foot, either.
Click to expand...

You recently had commented on a post I made indicating that my response had fallen on deaf ears... and I am going to tell you the same now. This entire thread is proof positive that there are those think they are safe enough, smart enough, careful enough that they have no need for a/v software, and I have come to understand that no matter how wrong you and I feel they are, there is absolutely nothing that can be said to these people that will sway their way of thinking. All we can do is hope that they stay in the minority.

Track record or no, the fact is that there is enough new malware out there that everyone who is online will, at some time or another, get a little nastiness stuck in their machine.... a/v or no a/v... it's like riding motocross, it's not a matter of if you fall, it's a matter of when you fall, and how bad that fall is.
 
djnes said:
You're either continuing this argument out of sheer insanity, or you are the most illogical person ever to enter these boards?
Click to expand...

I was attacked the moment I answered the OP's question honestly. I felt a need to defend my stance, and figured "I've not had a problem yet" was a good enough response to make.
 
TeeJayHoward said:
I was attacked the moment I answered the OP's question honestly. I felt a need to defend my stance, and figured "I've not had a problem yet" was a good enough response to make.
Click to expand...
By all means defend yourself. No one would ever tell you differently. But for the love of god, if your statements contradict your entire argument, you aren't going to be taken seriously.

Do you remember the Iraqi PR guy who kept saying the US wasn't in Baghdad.....as the US tanks were rolling down the street behind him?
 
djnes said:
zacdl said:
get shot in the foot, either.
Click to expand...
You should be careful. There's already been on person who shot themselves in the foot in this thread. Just see above.
Click to expand...

You remind me of a certain "flip-flopping" politician.

duby229 said:
Dont twist my words, if your going to quote me, quote the whole thing.. Not bits and peices that you picked out. I could make you look like a saint, or satan by doing the same thing.
Click to expand...
 
djnes said:
You're in danger until your software is updated....but there's no danger to begin with. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Way to missummarize.

With viruses as they are, there is no danger.
In the future, there may be danger, and your anti-virus software won't help until it's updated.
 
digital_exhaust said:
It's like riding motocross, it's not a matter of if you fall, it's a matter of when you fall, and how bad that fall is.
Click to expand...

Anti-Virus is an airbag on a motorcycle. It may help in 1% of the crashes.
Not being stupid with how you set up your machine is wearing leathers and a helmet while riding. It will help in 99% of the crashes.

Oh, and not everyone goes down. There are several bikers who have died of old age, having never falled from a bike.
 
TeeJayHoward said:
Way to missummarize.

With viruses as they are, there is no danger.
In the future, there may be danger, and your anti-virus software won't help until it's updated.
Click to expand...
Again, what does it matter, if you're in no danger to begin with? You can't say the wide-freakin-gaping whole in your logic?

Yes, you are in danger until the AV software is updated...which is why one of the key factors in choosing one, is how often they are updated. You can't possible say this, and then in the same breathe say no danger exists. There was no missumarization at all. You have taken a sharp turn into arguing for the sake of arguing...even to the point where you aren't even making sense. You're contrdicting yourself each and everytime you post this. Raise the white flag and get it over with.
 
djnes said:
Again, what does it matter, if you're in no danger to begin with? You can't say the wide-freakin-gaping whole in your logic?

Yes, you are in danger until the AV software is updated...which is why one of the key factors in choosing one, is how often they are updated. You can't possible say this, and then in the same breathe say no danger exists. There was no missumarization at all. You have taken a sharp turn into arguing for the sake of arguing...even to the point where you aren't even making sense. You're contrdicting yourself each and everytime you post this. Raise the white flag and get it over with.
Click to expand...

Are you in danger of being raped by an alien right now? No? What about in the future, when butt-raping aliens crash land in your home town? Has the danger increased?
Is my machine in danger of being raped by a virus right now? No? What about in the future, when a new butt-raping virus comes out? Has the danger increased?
There's no flaw in my logic. Maybe my articulation could use a boost, but my logic is sound.

The "your anti-virus won't save you then" portion of my arguement was my (admittedly pitiful) attempt to point out a flaw in the "anti-virus protects you!!!1!" arguement.
 
If you say so. I don't need to really say anything more. You dug your own hole, and the more you try to climb out, the worse it gets.
 
TeeJayHoward said:
The "your anti-virus won't save you then" portion of my arguement was my (admittedly pitiful) attempt to point out a flaw in the "anti-virus protects you!!!1!" arguement.
Click to expand...
Okay, so you've admitted it, and now we can move on and bring this back to being a useful debate.
 
djnes said:
You're *ahem* logic does bring up a good question. Could you have sex with your girlfriend if she doesn't exist? Yep...you're logic IS sound.
Click to expand...

I'm failing to see the connection, but I'll try and expand on your comparison.

At the moment, you don't have a girlfriend. Obviously, no sex. But wait, in the future, you may have a girlfriend. And she might have an unknown disease that condoms won't protect you from. Then the industry will find out about the disease and make a condom that'll save you from it. But you've already had sex with her. How is the condom protecting you? You're already infected.

Meanwhile, I spent less time worrying about the disease, and more time banging my girlfriend.

But you're right. This is quickly turning into a soapbox thread.
 
TeeJayHoward said:
I'm failing to see the connection,
Click to expand...
Yes, indeed you are failing to see a lot of things. We could probably just wrap up the thread with that statement. You've already admitted above it was a pitiful argument. It had holes like swiss cheese. Why keep going? It's over and done with. It made no sense, it was a bad attempt, you admitted it, now move on.
 
djnes said:
Yes, indeed you are failing to see a lot of things. We could probably just wrap up the thread with that statement. You've already admitted above it was a pitiful argument. It had holes like swiss cheese. Why keep going? It's over and done with. It made no sense, it was a bad attempt, you admitted it, now move on.
Click to expand...

A summary of your previous post:

You fail!
You fail so bad you make this thread hurt!
Even you said you fail!
Your arguement fails.
You should give up.
You fail, now do as I say, and stop talking.

Wow. Highly constructive. If you want me to leave that badly, I guess I have no choice.

(Uhm, how do I unsubscribe from a thread?)
 
TeeJayHoward said:
At the moment, you don't have a girlfriend.
Click to expand...

It's stupid stuff like this that drives me nuts. You have zero proof of that, and yet base an entire argument on it.

For your information, djnes is actually married.

Onto your argument, I will try to explain it the best that I can...
You argued that you are not at risk. You then argued that until virus definitions are updated- that I am at risk of that virus. Wait- that means you are at risk of a virus. See what djnes has been trying to say?
You just as much as admitted viruses pose a problem, because new ones can't be protected from.
Now- the difference here is that you are NEVER protected, and I am protected in a couple of days once they get the update released.

See the difference? You are exposed forever. I'm exposed for a few days.
 
Newsflash for those who argue about how antivirus software is useless until the latest defs come out. Uhm...the better AV products work on heuristics now.
 
YeOldeStonecat said:
Newsflash for those who argue about how antivirus software is useless until the latest defs come out. Uhm...the better AV products work on heuristics now.
Click to expand...

Yea- but they can't even understand the basic operations of virii, how on earth are they supposed to know how heuristic scanning works?
 
zacdl said:
You argued that you are not at risk. You then argued that until virus definitions are updated- that I am at risk of that virus. Wait- that means you are at risk of a virus. See what djnes has been trying to say?
Click to expand...

Amazing.virus.A is a virus which affects smart and stupid users alike - The first of it's kind, ever.

April 26th, 2007: Neither AV users nor smart users are at risk of any viruses.
April 27th, 2007: Amazing.virus.A comes out. Everyone is at risk, self included.
April 28th, 2007: Anti-Virus manufacturers release updated definitions. Only smart users are at risk now.
April 29th, 2007: Software manufacturer releases security patch. Neither AV users nor smart users are at risk of any viruses.

I see what djnes was trying to say. I see what everyone is trying to say. I also see that nobody can understand what I'M trying to say. 100% of the viruses I've been exposed to will not harm a person who knows what they are doing. In the future, a virus that CAN harm a smart individual MAY or MAY NOT be released. Based on viruses released in the past, the possibility of the new virus being harmful to a smart individual is significantly less than the possibility of it being another "harmless" virus. However, in the event that such a virus IS released, a person with AV is not protected any more than a person without, until the definitions are updated.

Instead of buying into the "Everyone needs an AV" hype, I formed my own opinion based on the real world, and the results, I believe, speak for themselves: I am, and have been, virus free for several years now.
 
TeeJayHoward said:
April 27th, 2007: Amazing.virus.A comes out. Everyone is at risk, self included.
April 28th, 2007: Anti-Virus manufacturers release updated definitions. Only smart users are at risk now.
Click to expand...

I think you pretty much proved our point right there...
 
zacdl said:
I think you pretty much proved our point right there...
Click to expand...

...If your point was that a larger power bill, shorter life span, and less available resouces is worth 24 hours of protection, then yes, I guess I proved it.
 
Quite honestly, a buck or two a month extra I spend having A/V for electricity usage in exchange for the 99% guarantee my account information is safe... is a pretty good trade-off.
 
Fine TeeJay, you win. Run without an AV, with the false confidence and "logic" that serves you. I believe your arguments to the contrary have done wonders for furthering the pro-AV crowd's argument. We apprecaite it, truly.
 
TeeJayHoward said:
...If your point was that a larger power bill, shorter life span, and less available resouces is worth 24 hours of protection, then yes, I guess I proved it.
Click to expand...

Wow, just wow. You are running 3 computers, monitors, etc and you are using the excuse that antivirus increases your electric bill so you aren't going to use it? And as far as resources, I think it is time to get or than 64M RAM in your computer and a 386SX. I am not even going to touch the shorter life span :rolleyes:
 
KevinO said:
Wow, just wow. You are running 3 computers, monitors, etc and you are using the excuse that antivirus increases your electric bill so you aren't going to use it? And as far as resources, I think it is time to get or than 64M RAM in your computer and a 386SX. I am not even going to touch the shorter life span :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Oh come on, cut him a LITTLE bit of slack. It's been scientifically proven that it uses 0.0000000001% more electricity and shortens your lifespan by 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000003%. Of course I can't prove it, but since it is right here on this message board, it must be true.
 
TeeJayHoward said:
I think my track record speaks for itself. Almost three years of uptime and not a single virus. I'm obviously doing something right. (My machines only get turned off when I move or reformat)
Click to expand...

I made it from 1999 to 2006 without a virus and no scanning software. Then I picked one up. It took me several days to hunt it down because the new viruses make themselves hard to find; an active scanner would have prevented it from ever getting started.

You can go a long time without an infection with little security, no one is arguing that. The question is, what are you going to say if the worst happens and the FBI shows up one day to confiscate your computer and finds all sorts of bad stuff on it? "Oh a virus must have done it" isn't a very solid defense.
 
I used to run Spyware Doctor. Pretty decent little tool. I do not run anything at the moment in terms of Virus Protection or Spyware protection and I'm fine. I don't surf porn or anything like that. Currently none of my computers are protected with anything.
 
Kinda humorous, just as it appears things are going to die down, another one pipes in.....

I vote for thread lock. I think the point has been made here. You can read what you want and make your own decision based on all the posts. This is going no-where but in a circle.
 
Malk-a-mite said:
Mods - second for the lock, please.
Click to expand...
Indeed. All this thread is doing is making us mail admins depressed.

We used to think user education would eventually win the spam battle. I can see how wrong we were now. So very very wrong.
 
It's simply a matter of weighing the admittedly minimal cost (not necessarily monetary) of running AVS against the benefits of it. I have situations where it's worth it, and others where it isn't.

We knowingly put ourselves in risky situations every single day. (exposing ourselves to the sun, eating unhealthy foods, crossing the street, etc.). It's a simple judgement call. There's no reason to get upset over it. Some people are in circumstances where the cost outweighs the benefit. There's certainly nothing illogical in making a judgement about your situation and acting in a manner which pleases you the most.
 
I can tell either many of these folks don't work in IT and have never seen what a virus can do, or they work in IT and know a lot less than they think they do. Hell I work on a virtually virus-proof OS (OpenVMS) but I've seen what they do to a corporate environment. They spread on their own. You don't necessarily have to do anything. Some just spread over the network. Anyone remember that blaster worm that spread over the internet by itself?

Running with no AV is like the analogy people made about having sex without a condom. Except you can pick up the disease just hanging out on the streets (i.e. the internet). Or maybe you've had sex with 20 women and no disease. "STDs being widespread is a myth!" Good luck with that mentality in life.

And a few of you are going to be the ones with zombified computers at some point. Thanks for screwing over everyone else because you don't want to give up a MB of RAM and a tiny bit of CPU power that you could never detect.
 
Windows Defender isn't that great, but I have it installed. I don't need an anti-virus program. I'm not superstitious.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top