PCBUILD Archives

Personal Computer Hardware discussion List

PCBUILD@LISTSERV.ICORS.ORG

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Content-Transfer-Encoding:
7bit
Sender:
PCBUILD - Personal Computer Hardware discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:
From:
Earl Truss <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Fri, 19 May 2000 23:08:47 -0500
Content-Type:
text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
MIME-Version:
1.0
Reply-To:
PCBUILD - Personal Computer Hardware discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (61 lines)
I tried replacing the file that McAfee recommended and, while it did
help to speed up my system, it was still noticeably slower with VShield
running - especially when using Internet Explorer.  The most noticeable
problem was that while a page was loading, if I moved the mouse, it
would move across the screen with many jerks, not smooth at all.  I had
a couple of extra copies of Norton Anti-Virus left over from an install
so I put one of them on.  It is quite an improvement - not nearly as
intrusive when the automatic scanner is running.

One thing difference between both Norton and VirusScan 4 and VirusScan 5
is the addition in VirusScan 5 of many more file types.  If you look in
the list of file types being scanned by VirusScan 5, you will see many
Internet file types like HTM and many that I've never heard of.  These
are not present in either Norton or in VirusScan 4.  I wonder if this is
what is causing the slowdown, especially when using Internet Explorer.

----- Original Message -----
From: Mark C. Barron <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Monday, May 15, 2000 9:24 AM
Subject: Re: [PCBUILD] SYSTEM GRINDING - MCAFEE UPDATE KILLER


> At 05:54 5/15/2000 , you wrote:
> >I was just about to re-post. I isolated the problem last night even
further.
> >It IS the McAfee Vshield! It seems that once the .DAT updates are
completed
> >to version .4077, the system absolutely SUFFERS. I tested a rash of
other
> >possibilities (including Windows 98 updates, RAM, CPU, Hard Drive,
etc...)
> >and the final out come is always the last 4 patches McAfee
distributes to
> >combat the Love virus. The definitions up to .4072 don't seem to
affect the
> >system at all.
>
> I've been running the 4077 DAT's since they came out and have no
trashing.
>
> However, I would recommend that you do NOT upgrade to the new version
5 of
> McAfee.
> System performance drops through the floor onces it's been installed.
I
> finally had to
> remove it and go back to ver 4 in order to get my system back up to
full
> speed.
> Version 5 uses the same DAT files as version 4, but it adds a few new
types of
> scanning which may be the problem.  I've sent a note to McAfee, but
they
> say it
> will be up to 4 days to get a response.

        The NOSPIN Group provides a monthly newsletter with great
       tips, information and ideas: NOSPIN-L, The NOSPIN Magazine
             Visit our web site to signup: http://nospin.com

ATOM RSS1 RSS2