Exactly. I never have bought a computer so it would run an anti-virus program. 
But then, as long as I have to run Windows (I do 
because 99% of my clients do), I am forced to have an anti-virus program. Funny 
how I had a Linux server running an Apache web site 
for years with no anti-virus program. Seems strange that an open source (free) 
program can do it and one of the richest companies 
in the world needs anti-virus, anti-spyware, etc. etc. etc.



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Ed Leafe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "ProFox Email List" <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2007 4:37 PM
Subject: Re: [NF] For / Against Norton


On Dec 26, 2007, at 6:54 PM, Mike Wohlrab wrote:

> heres something you can do. on a clients maching that you took
> norton off of
> and install visual studio 2005 and see how well the system works.
> my bet is
> that it will be just as slow. but according to M$ you need a 600
> mhz cpu,
> and 192 meg of ram. and we all know that it is not the speed of hte
> processor that makes it fast. norton has gotten a lot better at
> using less
> resources.

Visual Studio is an *application*: it's a reason why you buy a
computer in the first place. Anti-virus programs are a necessary evil
when running a porous OS, but they aren't the reason for the
computer. Apps *should* place burdens on the machine, while
supplementary utilities should not.

-- Ed Leafe
-- http://leafe.com
-- http://dabodev.com




[excessive quoting removed by server]

_______________________________________________
Post Messages to: [email protected]
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the 
author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added 
to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.

Reply via email to