The Software Hall of Shame!

[Cluttermagnet]

Hall of Shame is questionable.  Too much personal antipathy, not much enlightenment.One person's crudgrater is another person's livelihood.The real Hall of Shame software should be reserved for those programs that are purposely malicious, infect your system, mine your personal data, and so on.I hate Shockwave when I encounter it on the web, but I don't have to load it, and don't have to return to sites that require it.  And of course I don't use it.

Wow guys- I am lovin' this thread! (So is Scot) Fascinating to see that folks like some of the same stuff I do, then right there on the same list of their favorites will be programs I think are awful, perhaps because of known security risks (hint: I'm thinking mostly MS here, but not entirely). Anybody who knows how to work in DOS utilities and in DOS on Win9x machines is OK in my book, especially when that person still loves good old (technically obsolete) Netscape 4.79. I'm still a Netscape loyalist but I've also branched out to a few others like Mozilla and Phoenix/Firebird and K-Meleon, etc.I guess I'm with Dug also in that I think we should not go too overboard in dissing various software or companies. This is all hopefully to stay mostly in the realm of good-natured fun, a chance to blow off steam, because face it- there is a lot of software out there that is just plain annoying! But it works, it gets the job done. I agree with those that suggest that ultimately what our collective comments shine a light on is truly awful software that spies, meddles, or doesn't deliver on important promises.I'm thinking here, for example, of the controversy over BlackIce. It has been soundly slammed by Steve Gibson because it has apparently been shown repeatedly to not prevent outbound, 'phone home' mischief by software already on a hard drive (even from a malicious trojan, virus, or keylogger, etc.). Steve says that even after he pointed out this laughable basic failing in this firewall product, the company did not correct the flaw but rather tried to conceal it by 'rigging' test performance so that the software apparently passed Steve's basic "Leak Test". This certainly made the product doubly unacceptable to Steve- yet I have seen several incidences on this forum where BlackIce users express puzzlement as to why the utility is getting slammed. So I look on this all as an opportunity to learn things I didn't know, and even to occasionally reconsider my own opinions I've formed over the years.

[Guest LilBambi]

I love this Topic!It is great to see how other folks view different types of software and what annoys us and the other side of the story when a rebuttal comes along.I have to agree about Incredimail ... I have a sister that uses it and it is very annoying, but you can't tell her that ... she thinks it's cool. (That's OK, I look at all messages in plain text and without coding visible in OE 6.x ... so I don't have to view deal with her email formatting or the html coding.It is great to be able to see both sides of a software story. There are pros and cons to most things and we all have to weigh these for ourselves but it helps to hear other's experiences with software, good and bad, to help make that decision.

[Prelude76]

some thoughts:

there's Symantec. There's probably some good arguments for the nomination but I've used their products for years and they deliver an important software essential..

I think the culprit is Norton SystemWorks 2003. I tried this out, and the ONLY semi-useful item is Norton AV 2003. But I'm with Thunderriver, the Corporate Edition Anti-Virus is close to half the memory hog and runs quicker than Norton 2003. but systemworks? absolutely useless and will drag any computer to its knees if you install and run all its options.

Anybody who knows how to work in DOS utilities and in DOS on Win9x machines is OK in my book, especially when that person still loves good old (technically obsolete) Netscape 4.79.

i know what you're saying, but in this hall of shame (or fame), DOS shouldnt count. it's a dead OS, and Netscape is dead too. i think anything that is not in current production should be exempt. otherwise, count my vote for X-Tree Gold in DOS.

ICQ is a very very lousy resource-hoggy program. I recommend Miranda ICQ, which is open source and very very nicely built to fit your need. Other than that, I too agree that MSN Messenger is the best messenger around. The public preview for MSN Messenger 6 should be out this Thursday.

phooey. Trillian Pro is the only way to go. (hey, it rhymes )good point that this thread shouldnt be "i like this" or "i hate this". it should be devoted to true shameware, some we can't live without but that is just plain annoying and needs some fixing. like Eurdora. ok, i KNOW a lot of peeps use this, and they all say "ok, it IS ugly, but...", there shouldnt be a "but". Qualcomm can easily hire one kiddie scripter from a skinning site and pay him $1000 to make new skins and icons. D***, i think some people would even do it for free! so to have the ugliest interface around and still refuse to fix it (beta for v6 is still same ugly) qualifies it well into Shameware. I think thats how our votes should go. its not whch program you like or dislike, but which one needs something major fixed and refuses to. TurboTax belonged here for its DRM, but they fixed that problem so i guess they should be off the list.does anyone else see my point? you may use a program every day and can't live without it, but it could still be shameware.I agree with these being shameware:Eudora (ugly)Outlook Express (no real innovation and target of 90% of worms)RealPlayer (for making a simple setup take 15 minutes by unchecking every option just to protect your privacy)AOL (just because)Netscape v7 (for taking Mozilla and adding useless stuff to it)Roxio (for losing their CDR monopoly to a no-name startup german company, NeroBurn)KaZaA (for being pure spyware and adware, and refusing to admit it on their website)TweakXP Pro (went from a nice tweak utility to pure bloatware with many useless options)Flash/Shockwave (HTML should be the only standard. i hate flash only websites and flash ads)

[texaganian]

Okie doke... my time to throw in two or three cents worth...First of all, seems to me there is a tie for all-time #1 most shameful software between:1a. Real anything1b. GatorSurely, I don't have to explain why (unethical practices, etc).The #3 on my personal list is probably Lotus Notes. I suspect the only reason it doesn't show up on others is because no one actually uses it (at least not anymore).AOL, of course, has to be way up there but this seems to me to be a case of "you get what you deserve". I guess I'd still nominate them for a high spot just for taking advantage of the mentally/technically disadvantaged who don't know enough to know better.I agree with QuickTime. I've been afflicted with it for years and many, many versions... none of which have been stable and it, too, insists on trying to insinuate itself into my system when I don't want it to.Roxio Easy CD Creator, as we all know, also has gotten on this list the old fashioned way... by earning it!ZoneAlarm... the user interface is nothing short of criminal, it refuses to give you information it has and you really need, is enormously hard to remove cleanly and they apparently have a staff of people supremely well trained in leaving information out of the documentation and refusing to answer simple questions.PowerQuest and Lavasoft are both examples of companies who started off as heroes but have gone over (way, way over) to the dark side. Sigh.Things like Kazaa or Morpheous... you get what you deserve. Something about who you lie down with...And I am totally baffled by the folks who nominated Agent. Where's the beef?Hmmm... seems to me there is at least one of major miscreant that is escaping my mind right now... oh well.Enough.

[Wendolene Ramsbottom]

Just a few thoughts from a relative Newbie:Stomp's BUMP can be a bit confusing, and, for a new computer user, pretty much a matter of trial-and-error. But bottom line for me is that it works. My opinion is probably influenced by the fact that when my laptop crashed catastrophically three months ago, I had a full set of back-up disks ready to go. One or two minor glitches later, I was back up and running with almost every file intact. Other than software that just doesn't work, the real Hall Of Shamers are the arrogant SOB's who install spyware on your computer. Stomping's too good for 'em!Wendolene

[allgoodthings]

Okie doke... my time to throw in two or three cents worth...First of all, seems to me there is a tie for all-time #1 most shameful software between:1a. Real anything1b. Gator

I think the number 1 on the list should be any program found to contain Spyware/Adware.To me, that's a shameful product that spies on the person who use their product. And just so as not to forget, not just freeware/shareware programs contain spyware! Remember Broderbund software and their DSSAGENT program???

[allgoodthings]

Just a few thoughts from a relative Newbie:Stomp's BUMP can be a bit confusing, and, for a new computer user, pretty much a matter of trial-and-error. But bottom line for me is that it works. My opinion is probably influenced by the fact that when my laptop crashed catastrophically three months ago, I had a full set of back-up disks ready to go. One or two minor glitches later, I was back up and running with almost every file intact. Other than software that just doesn't work, the real Hall Of Shamers are the arrogant SOB's who install spyware on your computer. Stomping's too good for  'em!

Actually their interface has been used in many of the tape backup programs from Seagate, Veritas and a few others. That's one of the reasons why I like it. Click what you want to back up and it'll do it.For ease of use, the wizard is pretty much self explanatory. And if you use the disaster recovery wizard, you'll have a backup of your system and a scheduled weekly backup procedure too!Get HULK to stomp them... 8>)PaT.

[gszent]

If I may, I wish to add my list, and/or reasons, to the Software Hall of Shame:1. Windows Media Player. When you copy a song from a CD to a .wma file, in a few days the file becomes unusable, whether you had full rights to it or not. My wife is a musician and I record her work.2. Eudora e-mail. I paid for it, but it never worked with dial-up AT&T, although that could be AT&T's fault.3. EasyCD Creator. Did you know that the C: drive is hard coded into that piece of software? If you do not install it on the C: drive, it does not work.4. Acrobat Reader. It installs all sort of junk all over the place.5. PowerDesk Pro. I liked this one until I started downloading stuff from the Web. If the file you are downloading goes to a temporary file (and you have no control over that most of the time), the program bombs every time.On the other hand I like Popfile, even though Scot does not. I have been training it for a few weeks now and it is about 99% accurate. Another week or two and I will leave it in full control.

[RobertM]

Windows Media Player. When you copy a song from a CD to a .wma file, in a few days the file becomes unusable, whether you had full rights to it or not. My wife is a musician and I record her work.

I'm also a musician and record my own work--I don't have that rights/access problem you're describing. I've tried WinAmp (and RealPlayer and QuickTime--excuse me for swearing), but I don't like it. Still, I'm forcing myself to try to get used to it to see if I can change my opinion, both versions 2 and 3. However, I really think WMP 9 (or even 7/"8") is the best one I've tried.However, speaking of your problem, I seem to remember some preference dictating what happens in terms of file rights when copying music ... but can't find it anywhere. In any case, though, it certainly has more to do with the WMA/WMV formats than with Player itself.

[Prelude76]

Windows Media Player. When you copy a song from a CD to a .wma file, in a few days the file becomes unusable, whether you had full rights to it or not. My wife is a musician and I record her work.

I'm also a musician and record my own work--I don't have that rights/access problem you're describing. I've tried WinAmp (and RealPlayer and QuickTime--excuse me for swearing), but I don't like it. Still, I'm forcing myself to try to get used to it to see if I can change my opinion, both versions 2 and 3. However, I really think WMP 9 (or even 7/"8") is the best one I've tried.However, speaking of your problem, I seem to remember some preference dictating what happens in terms of file rights when copying music ... but can't find it anywhere. In any case, though, it certainly has more to do with the WMA/WMV formats than with Player itself.

to the 2 people that record original music, can I ask a question? why use Media Player? doesn't it limit the bitrate (therefore, quality) of your songs? I'm not a musician, but I helped convert some LPs to digital format so my dad could listen to them, and for encoding / recording music, Cool Edit 2000 is the best way to go. Sure, it costs money compare to Free Media Player, but you have so much more control over the music and can apply filters and effects to it for that professinal touch. The 2000 version is only $70, and the Pro version that lets you do studio-quality editing is $250. Another good editor is Sound Forge, but i evaluate both and Cool Edit was nicer. just a tip to help avoid media player's frustrations.

[mfc]

Regarding the "Working List of the Software Hall of Shame,"I would agree with Outlook, Outlook Express, the latest TurboTax, and RealPlayer. Outlook consumes far too many system resources, Outlook Express is buggy and resource intensive, and is responsible for propagating most of the viruses in recent memory. RealPlayer is just annoying, and TurboTax screwed things up in a big way with their copy protection. Of the other products on the list that I have used, I have no problems with QuickTime or EZ CD Creator.To the working list, I would add Netscape 4.7.x. This browser causes enormous headaches for Web developers trying to use dHTML. Netscape helped shape the HTML and CSS standards, but their browser does not even support the standards. When AOL took over Netscape, they simply integrated AOL software into it, while adding little of value.For the list of recent nominees, definitely REMOVE Acrobat Reader, Adobe Illustrator, Eudora, MS Access, MS Excel, MSIE, MS Word, MS Office, Norton AntiVirus, Norton System Works, IIS, and Personal Web Server. These are all decent products. Intuit Quicken is good, but the newer versions apparently introduce a lot of bugs. I am using an old version and find it very valuable. Eudora is not perfect, but it does not have a problem with viruses and was an early supporter of Kerberos authentication. My hall of fame would include: MS Excel, MS Word, Adobe Photoshop, ColdFusion Studio (aka Homesite), ColdFusion Server 5 and MX, MS SQL Server 7 and 2000, Mac OS X v10.2, MS Windows 2000, Apache, TextPad, Windows 2003 Server/IIS 6.Software that I may consider for the hall of fame are: Zone Alarm (free version), Trillian (free version), AdAware (free version), Eudora, Dreamweaver MX, Serv-U (ftp server)

[RobertM]

to the 2 people that record original music, can I ask a question?  why use Media Player?  doesn't it limit the bitrate (therefore, quality) of your songs?  I'm not a musician, but I helped convert some LPs to digital format so my dad could listen to them, and for encoding / recording music, Cool Edit 2000 is the best way to go.  Sure, it costs money compare to Free Media Player, but you have so much more control over the music . . .  Another good editor is Sound Forge, but i evaluate both and Cool Edit was nicer.  just a tip to help avoid media player's frustrations. 

WMP is actually the last program I ever use when recording my music--in fact, I don't even use it for recording. Sound Recorder and Cool Edit are actually the programs I use for recording and mixing. Then I can encode it into some other format, but sometimes I put it into WMA instead of MP3. That's normally just when I need a bit smaller file and sound quality isn't a concern--although I haven't noticed much of a difference. (Then again, many of those pieces were piano-only...)

[RobertM]

Regarding the "Working List of the Software Hall of Shame," . . .To the working list, I would add Netscape 4.7.x. This browser causes enormous headaches for Web developers trying to use dHTML. Netscape helped shape the HTML and CSS standards, but their browser does not even support the standards. When AOL took over Netscape, they simply integrated AOL software into it, while adding little of value.

I agree, but I can't tell if you think that's the way the Netscape browser still is. Version 7 is one of the best browsers out there. Definitely more standards-compliant than IE.PS - You may wish to make your fame comments in the other thread for the Hall of Fame instead--that's actually in a separate thread on this same board.

[Prelude76]

I agree, but I can't tell if you think that's the way the Netscape browser still is.  Version 7 is one of the best browsers out there.

yeah, i dont agree with adding Netscape v4. i mean, we're up to v7. it gives netscape a bad name by still having people talk about their old mistake. i mean, you dont see anyone nominating Microsoft Bob. (remember that program? )

[gszent]

to the 2 people that record original music, can I ask a question? why use Media Player? doesn't it limit the bitrate (therefore, quality) of your songs? I'm not a musician, but I helped convert some LPs to digital format so my dad could listen to them, and for encoding / recording music, Cool Edit 2000 is the best way to go.

Thanks, people, but I am not using Media Player any more either. It's just that at one time I needed some older files and could not use them. There seem to be some programs out there to fix these files but they don't work for me.

[foxfire]

I'm breaking my own rule by posting before I've read the complete thread, but I've managed to get through half of it (6 pages), and I have more than enough for a post. Hope I'm not repeating anything in 7-12.RealPlayer is often mentioned. It gets my vote, too. But I don't have to stay away from sites that use it. I run JetAudio. I think you have to have Real installed first, any version from their archives site will work, (I used RealPlayer8). After installing JetAudio you can uninstall RealPlayer completely, including the registry - anything you can find and JetAudio will still play the files. The CoDecs will remain in the JetAudio installation folder.KaZaA. I use it occasionally, but I noticed that after running SpyBot's Search & Destroy it still continued to function absent the spyware. Ad-Aware couldn't find any, either. Had I run Ad-Aware first, KaZaA would have died. Spybot's secret? Replace ad files with dummy files. (A neutered KaZaA = a nice KaZaA.)I wish someone would come up with a complete list of a 'Hall of Alternatives' to replace the programs we hate but can't do without. Comet Cursor needs no alternative, but Gator was a useful concept. AIRoboform is the no-brainer here.Other alternatives might be more controversial, but here's my short list:Gator > AIRoboformBlack Ice & Zone Alarm > Agnitum's OutPost 2.0McAfee > Panda AntivirusMSNMessenger > TrillianDownload Accelerator Plus > GetRightAd-Aware Plus > Spybot's Search & Destroy

[GolfProRM]

I wish someone would come up with a complete list of a 'Hall of Alternatives' to replace the programs we hate but can't do without. Comet Cursor needs no alternative, but Gator was a useful concept. AIRoboform is the no-brainer here.Other alternatives might be more controversial, but here's my short list:Gator > AIRoboformBlack Ice & Zone Alarm > Agnitum's OutPost 2.0McAfee > Panda AntivirusMSNMessenger > TrillianDownload Accelerator Plus > GetRightAd-Aware Plus > Spybot's Search & Destroy

Go Nuts! Start a thread and run with it! You've got a good start list there! Relax and have some fun. That's what we're here for.

[rageinmachine]

In the latest newsletter that I received, Scot said the following: "Down to BusinessThere were two clear leaders on the Hall of Shame list. Those products are RealNetworks' RealPlayer and RealOne and Roxio's and Adaptec's Easy CD Creator. Those two product lines were nominated over and over and over again, both via email and in the forums. And not one soul stood up to defend them. They are the Shameware Kings of the Software Hall of Shame"I read the entire thread because I couldn't believe that Roxio (and Adaptec) Easy CD Creator had NO one defend them. Jeez, I've fought this battle for years with users (including my own wife and daughter). "Nero's better, faster, more reliable," I'd say. "it's too hard to use...I don't know what this means...I don't like it," they'd respond. Even with Nero Express, most of them wouldn't switch. Non-technical and technical alike seemed to prefer Adaptec\Roxio for it's ease of use, and the benefits of Nero were lost on them ("Yeah, it burned my music CD a whole minute and a half faster," my wife once said, "but it took me three minutes just to set the settings"). Okay, so eventually you concede that they just want to do some basic burning chores most of the time and yeah, Roxio's pretty easy to use. So, I've always kept one version or another installed. Personally, I've tended to use different apps for different burning tasks over the years: MusicMatch for ripping; CloneCD for Disc-copying; Nero for data and audio file burning. But I've experimented with just about everything there is. This would include Roxio Easy CD-DVD Creator 6, of course. And while I've read others in this thread that DID support Adaptec\Roxio, I figure I'll throw my two cents in, too. It's pretty sweet. I like it a lot. A WHOLE Lot. For once, my family and I agree...it's quick and easy to use, and, yes, it does the job fast...fast as Nero, MusicMatch or CloneCD ever did.Don't get me wrong, I still like Nero a lot (MusicMatch not so much...I hate getting perpetually sold to). And I still use Clone CD (and lately, UltraISO) for disc-copies (even though my tests with Roxio 6 averaged 2.5 - 3 minutes with no flaws). But I find I use Roxio 6 more often than Nero these days for the usual burning chores.I don't use and so, won't speak, for every item of the suite (DVD Creator, GoBack, or the audio player)...and I would agree that Roxio has been responsible for some major blunders since buying Adaptec out...but they've really done a fine job with this new version. Such a fine job that I felt compelled to stand up in their defense. I guess this falls in line with the Netscape thread...continuing to fault a version that's been replaced and improved upon. Can a Hall of Shame product be forgiven?

[texaganian]

In response to mine, allgoodthings said:

I think the number 1 on the list should be any program found to contain Spyware/Adware.To me, that's a shameful product that spies on the person who use their product. And just so as not to forget, not just freeware/shareware programs contain spyware!

Just to clarify... that's a large part of why those two (Real & Gator) topped my list. Everybody should understand the Gator thing but seemingly a lot of people have never noticed how Real repeatedly hijacks parts of your system you have told them to leave alone, hides lots and lots of privacy invasion options during the installation unless you look really close, requires you to scroll and individually turn off huge numbers of them if you do look close enough to see them, etc, etc, etc. And they've been doing all this stuff longer than anybody... without remorse. Bah! A pox on their house!

[Sky]

You are right about ZA and AVG's interface too ... LOL ... but I never look a gift horse in the mouth ... I am very thankful for them

Grisoft AVG, is the concern only about the interface?Just thinking (yeah it hurts to do that) is that is the only reason for pasting it on "shame" list?So far ZA, and Avg gets a "sky" award. ZA took longer to set up. I like the ease of updating Avgand if ZA didn't offer its *free* prog, I would buy it.ta~taSky

[Sky]

I still use PaintShopPro5, Started with it, never upgraded.I vote to take it off the shame list.PSP5 doesn't have all the bells my PhotoShop7 has, but I learned on it and the transition to PhotoShop7 wasn't hard.GatorRealPlayerCute FTPNS, it's a shame I still use it.Sky

[Warp9dot7]

As a network administrator my vote goes to "Windows Critical Update Notification." Appropriately named by someone at Microsoft with a sense of humor, this little jewel will reek havoc on a network. Guaranteed to eventually create a "critical" situation. I know this utility is known for patching things that are not broken and breaking things that you've spent hours or days fixing but my dislike for this windows component is much more basic. On the Novell networks I administrate and some of the Windows networks, the update utility causes the workstations to freeze up. Since Windows has never been perfectly stable anyway, "critical update" guarantees the workstations will not be stable. Perfect.I wonder if that routine was written by the same team who wrote the shutdown routine for Windows 98 Second Edition.....

[orions2002]

Mcafee Virus Scan should not be on your list of the software hall or shame. It is a good piece of software, which I have been using for the past 4 years. It has several plus points in its favour. Namely its virus definition updates are smaller. You do not have to download a 3-4 MB file to update the virus definition files. Also its interface is pretty clean and is everything is avaliable with a few clicks. It is a good product. Also Eudora is a good package. Granted, it has a steep learning curve. But once you get a hold of it, you realise it eons ahead of its counterparts. My only gripe against it is that, they do not make a Linux/Unix version, which they should. Please take it off your listThanks And Bye

[allgoodthings]

Mcafee Virus Scan should not be on your list of the software hall or shame. It is a good piece of software, which I have been using for the past 4 years. It has several plus points in its favour. Namely its virus definition updates are smaller. You do not have to download a 3-4 MB file to update the virus definition files. Also its interface is pretty clean and is everything is avaliable with a few clicks. It is a good product.

Ever since McAfee released version 6 it's been a slow system crashing piece of software. Remember the bootscan problem?? Hangs up the system and searches for 1 billion viruses! On bootup the program doesn't even load properly sometimes.... And this is on a new computer! It uses about 30% more resources than Norton does.The only good thing about it? The dos version of the program. I use it for scanning computers that come in to the shop as it can fit on a couple of floppies.But I'd recommend Norton everytime especially for it's email cleaning. McAfee scans the attachments when you click on them. If the scanner doesn't load properly on bootup, you're infected! Norton, which uses a different module than the active loaded scanner, will still scan your email unless you either turn off the setting or remove the program off the drive. Even if you disable Norton from loading on startup, unless you've turned off the option, it'll still scan your incoming/outgoing emails....

[foxfire]

I tried McAfee Antivirus a few years ago and it was a tremendous resource hog back then. I mainly used Norton up until a couple of years ago. As the rest of System Works went down the tubes, it occurred to me that if I could find a decent Antivirus replacement then I could rid my system of all Symantec/Norton software once and for all. (It's not easy to get all of the remnants of those programs out of your system!)Not that there is anything wrong with Norton AV; it probably does as good a job as anything out there. It's just that LiveUpdate isn't very convenient - it takes too long so I don't want to automate it - and I have to set aside time to actually do it.Much better has been my experience with Panda Titanium. Updates are provided on a daily basis. I usually log on every morning about 0800 CDST and the first thing that happens is that Panda updates itself for the day. This takes all of about 20 seconds. And that's on a dial-up modem! (I feel confident using auto-updates in this case; if you can't trust your antivirus provider, then who can you trust?)Since the major antivirus companies share information I don't think which one you choose makes much difference. AVG is probably as effective as any and it's free. Still, I prefer Panda; that friendly little bear in my system tray gives me a feeling of well-being.

[Guest Loque]

Not that there is anything wrong with Norton AV; it probably does as good a job as anything out there. It's just that LiveUpdate isn't very convenient - it takes too long so I don't want to automate it - and I have to set aside time to actually do it.

Norton AV automatically searches for definition updates every time your get on-line, and it does it silently so that you never even know it's doing the live update. That auto update may have started with the 2002 version, seems like I remember having to do it manually with the 2001 version, and you're right, it was a pain.

[mrainey]

At the Symantec website it says that Live Update updates (including feature updates) are normally released every Wednesday. The Intelligent Updater updates (virus definitions only) are released 4-5 times a week (I know this from experience), but must be downloaded manually. So, if weekly updates make you feel safe, the Live Update is painless and works well. If you're paranoid, as I am, and always want the very latest virus definitions, the manual method is a must.

[Prelude76]

Not that there is anything wrong with Norton AV; it probably does as good a job as anything out there. It's just that LiveUpdate isn't very convenient - it takes too long so I don't want to automate it - and I have to set aside time to actually do it.Much better has been my experience with Panda Titanium. Updates are provided on a daily basis. I usually log on every morning about 0800 CDST and the first thing that happens is that Panda updates itself for the day. This takes all of about 20 seconds. And that's on a dial-up modem!

actually, thats main reason i hate Norton. i tried to get my Dad using it, but after several failed attempts to download 3.8mb of AV Updates on his dial-up modem, i gave up. do they really have 3.8mb worth of new virus strings? i doubt it!! i think norton sends the entire database every time you update! grrrrrgonna try Panda. thanks for the tip.

[Scot]

Panda wouldn't quite make my Hall of Shame list, but I don't love it. I tried it a little over a year ago. I had several problems with it and finally wound up uninstalling it when Panda's indifferent tech support couldn't help. A year later, Panda started "spamming" me with daily reminders that my annual subscription to virus reference files was out of date. It got so bad I finally went to their site to kill the messages. At least that worked.I'd have to go thumbs down on Panda.And it's not like I love NAV 2003. But I still haven't found anything better than it. I keep trying. I want something that has most of its features, though, as well as its ease of use. I'm not sure there really is anything out there like it.-- Scot

[DannySmurf]

actually, thats main reason i hate Norton.  i tried to get my Dad using it, but after several failed attempts to download 3.8mb of AV Updates on his dial-up modem, i gave up.  do they really have 3.8mb worth of new virus strings?  i doubt it!!  i think norton sends the entire database every time you update!

Well no, it doesn't send the entire database. LiveUpdate is also used to download and install program updates as well. So after you install it, there's going to be several MB of patches and updates that are going to be installed in addition to the virus definitions.--Danny Smurf