Re: Macafee antivirus software
From: Dave Budd (ddotbudd_at_man.ac.uk)
Date: 11/30/04
- Next message: Dave Budd: "Re: Macafee antivirus software"
- Previous message: Bigbruva: "Re: very hidden directory"
- In reply to: David H. Lipman: "Re: Macafee antivirus software"
- Next in thread: Dave Budd: "Re: Macafee antivirus software"
- Reply: Dave Budd: "Re: Macafee antivirus software"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 09:19:45 -0000
In article <elWZu7#0EHA.3468@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl>,
DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net says...
> McAfee Enterprise v4.5.1 with SP1 was extremely stable. No problems noted on W98, WinME and
> Win2K. There are quirks with it on WinXP. However, McAfee Enterprise v7.1 works great
> under WinXP (and Win2K).
>
I didn't say it wasn't stable, I said it sucked a bit. Given the typical
spec of w98 boxes in my desmesne, it was too resource intensive. otoh,
Sophos used to get upset by the presence of zipdrives on some mobos.
>
>
-- Post presented in its original aspect ratio of 1.78:1 - scrollbars at the sides of the screen are normal in this format. This high-definition digital message was created on a run-of-the-mill PC from the restored 35mm negative. To further enhance it, many grammar and spelling errors and other inaccuracies have been removed using the DB EBD-TC system.
- Next message: Dave Budd: "Re: Macafee antivirus software"
- Previous message: Bigbruva: "Re: very hidden directory"
- In reply to: David H. Lipman: "Re: Macafee antivirus software"
- Next in thread: Dave Budd: "Re: Macafee antivirus software"
- Reply: Dave Budd: "Re: Macafee antivirus software"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]