Best Anti-Virus software for editing machine!!!!

[TylerGred]

I thought this could fit into this section since it's about software on an editing machine... however if not, I'm sorry.

I just wanted to write and tell you that I have found the best anti-virus program from an editing machine. It's hands down much better than Norton and McaFee in protection and what editors need the most and that is PERFORMANCE SPEED.

It's called nod32 and it's made by a German company called Eset.

http://www.nod32.com/home/home.htm

Download and try the trial version out and you will change. My computer is so much faster since changing. Seriously, try it out.

Also, if you do download it, be sure you use these settings for the best protection.
http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=37509

Enjoy.

[MattC]

Actually, No, I have the best anti-virus software for an editing machine - Mac OS X.....

[reservoir]

Well....for Winblows you can't go wrong with Norton Antivirus Corporate Edition. It monitors my whole network from a central node. But MattC hit the nail on the head. OSX!! Linux ain't no slouch either!! ~reservoir~

[GenJerDan]

Much simpler to just turn off the AV when editing.

Actually, turn off anything your not using that could steal cycles.

Dan

[Neil Rowe]

..having a dedicated machine running only certified and legit software takes care of any virus worries.

[reservoir]

..having a dedicated machine running only certified and legit software takes care of any virus worries.

You're joking right? ~reservoir~

[Neil Rowe]

no .. im not joking ...are you implying that if i only use a machine for video editing , and have only line based secure network connections to simple rendering workhorse machines.. and only install licensed pro software, and only input video and audio.. i can still get a virus? .. interesting, i didnt know theve gone airborne.


you may still have hardware or software conflicts, but proper installations and configuration takes care of those.

[reservoir]

no .. im not joking ...are you implying that if i only use a machine for video editing , and have only line based secure network connections to simple rendering workhorse machines.. and only install licensed pro software, and only input video and audio.. i can still get a virus? .. interesting, i didnt know theve gone airborne.


you may still have hardware or software conflicts, but proper installations and configuration takes care of those.


AAhh..but you didn't say all that now. You said:

..having a dedicated machine running only certified and legit software takes care of any virus worries.

To me that reads that if you use licensed copies of software that you won't get viruses. I was only going to point out that although most viruses' payload are delivered via email, that there are many virii that propagate through networks and can enter your computer via network exploitations like RPC, such as the now-famous *Blaster32* worm. I understand you now. You meant if your machine is solely for editing and not connected to the internet....only peripherals like your camera, firewire drives, RAIDS, etc. Just a minor misunderstanding!! ~reservoir~

[kai]

...just edit in a tin-foil lined room with no connections to the outside world, plugging into only your gas powered generator in the closet. Safe and sound. ;b

[David Jimerson]

To me that reads that if you use licensed copies of software that you won't get viruses. . . .. You meant if your machine is solely for editing and not connected to the internet....only peripherals like your camera, firewire drives, RAIDS, etc. Just a minor misunderstanding!! ~reservoir~

Could be that word "dedicated" that was throwing you. Neil, how dare you use secret codes in an open forum! :shocked:

If OSX were 90-95% of the computing world, there would be just as many viruses for it. So, to that extent, you're right -- get OSX, 'coz no one cares . . . :laugh:

(Yes, yes, I know; OSX was written by God himself and a team of seraphim and was discovered etched into 1,024 huge stone tablets by Steve Jobs on a spelunking tour of Asia Minor. It’s Holy Writ and is protected from viruses by the same spirits as reside in the Ark of the Covenant. And by the way, just wait ‘til Tiger!)

In any case, Neil gives you the best solution – keep your editing machine off the Internet except when absolutely necessary – if there’s no other way to get upgrades, etc..

[MattC]

David, your right, if OSX were 90-90% of the computing world, there would be many viruses for it. That's one of the reasons why I am VERY happy with Mac's current market share. And yes, OSX is a FAR superior operating system.

Matt

[kappa22]

"Superior" is relative to the ability of the user. "Idiot-proof" is actually closer to reality. UNIX is stronger than even the most computer illiterate user; OSX, on the other hand, is not.

[MattC]

No, but it's close, or at least the closest thing out there so far (well, maybe linux is closer, I don't know). I am hoping that OSX will continue to move closer to UNIX , but still, with a UNIX base, I feel OSX is as good as you can get right now without going to UNIX (or perhaps LINUX). Am I wrong?

[reservoir]

Could be that word "dedicated" that was throwing you. Neil, how dare you use secret codes in an open forum!


dedicated \dedicated\ adj.

1. wholly committed to a purpose or cause; as, a dedicated musician.

Syn: devoted. [WordNet 1.5]

2. zealous in loyalty or affection; as, dedicated nurses.

Syn: devoted. [WordNet 1.5]

3. set apart especially for a higher purpose; as, a life dedicated to science. [Narrower terms: consecrated (vs. desecrated), consecrate]

Syn: dedicated to(predicate), devoted to(predicate). [WordNet 1.5]


Dedicated to the purpose of editing video has absolutely NOTHING to do with whether or not it is connected to an internet connection buddy!! I have machine *DEDICATED* to burning CDs/DVDs but it stays connected to the internet. So let's not be a smartass Jubal. I even said in my own post that I misunderstood what he was trying to say. Thanx for pointing it out to everyone in style!!

And I don't understand why you got so pissy about OSX

If OSX were 90-95% of the computing world, there would be just as many viruses for it. So, to that extent, you're right -- get OSX, 'coz no one cares . . .

(Yes, yes, I know; OSX was written by God himself and a team of seraphim and was discovered etched into 1,024 huge stone tablets by Steve Jobs on a spelunking tour of Asia Minor. It’s Holy Writ and is protected from viruses by the same spirits as reside in the Ark of the Covenant. And by the way, just wait ‘til Tiger!)

First of all. I don't even use a Mac. Don't own one. Don't have one at work. Only occasionally use them at other jobsites. Secondly, the people who think that if OSX ruled the world, then there would be just as many viruses, are sadly mistaken on this point as well. Since Unix's beginnings in the 1970's it has always been less susceptible to viruses than DOS and Windows applications. Here is a small passage for some unbiased unix info websites:

"The computer virus problem is much less prevalent under the Unix platform, but that does not at all mean it is nonexistent. Unix viruses (though very few) do exist. Additionally, some of the oldest worms are UNIX based! If you consider your data important, you need to accept these facts.

That said, there are certainly (and not surprisingly) very few viruses in the wild viable under Unix. This is partly because of access restrictions in the environment. For example, if a user runs a file that is infected with a virus, it can only do what this user has privileges to do (under normal conditions-not much) so at very least, it cannot spread to other systems. But, if a superuser (or anyone with full permissions) runs a virus, it could possibly infect the whole system and travel to other systems... etc.

Also, one must remember that viruses are much less prevalent under UNIX operating systems simply because those operating systems are not as widely used for home systems as DOS/Windows operating systems. If more people used UNIX operating systems at home, obviously more viruses would target them. The rise in popularity of the GNU/Linux operating system, has certainly shown this to be true."

Therefore based solely one the makeup of the operating system, Unix is virtually incapable of ever being susceptible to near as many viruses due to the fact that it has a hard coded aministration system that governs files and file access.

If more people used UNIX operating systems at home, obviously more viruses would target them. The rise in popularity of the GNU/Linux operating system, has certainly shown this to be true."

Of course if Unix or OSX made everybody super users all the time then ALOT more viruses would spring up. But if Unix is used like it was intended (Admin, SuperAdmin, and root users should not be used in every day usage as they are generally reserved for special purposes of administration) then without a doubt you would not see near as many viruses capable of wiping out entire systems and networks.

I hope I was able to convey my point in a calm an reasonable fashion. Like I said, I'm just a regular PC using Joe but I like to let the facts speak for themselves. Thank you for your time in reading this. ~reservoir~

[David Jimerson]

dedicated \dedicated\ adj.

1. wholly committed to a purpose or cause;

Yes.


Dedicated to the purpose of editing video has absolutely NOTHING to do with whether or not it is connected to an internet connection buddy!!

No, it does, especially when the word is used as a term of art as it is in this sense. "Dedicated," as in, you edit with it; you do nothing else with it. No e-mail. No web surfing. No games. You connect to the Internet only as absolutely necessary to download updates, etc., if you ever do at all. That's how Neil meant it and that's how it's understood in a technical sense.

Of course I was being a smartass, but I meant no particular offense. Just doing a little bit of good-natured tweaking.


And I don't understand why you got so pissy about OSX

I only ever do in response to "Macs are the handiwork of the gods" posts. :thumbsup:



First of all. I don't even use a Mac. Don't own one. Don't have one at work. Only occasionally use them at other jobsites.

Well, I wasn't addressing you on this. I was responding to MattC, and he took it in stride. HE was tweaking; I tweaked back; no harm done; no offense taken; it was over.



Secondly, the people who think that if OSX ruled the world, then there would be just as many viruses, are sadly mistaken on this point as well. Since Unix's beginnings in the 1970's it has always been less susceptible to viruses than DOS and Windows applications. Here is a small passage for some unbiased unix info websites:

"The computer virus problem is much less prevalent under the Unix platform, but that does not at all mean it is nonexistent. Unix viruses (though very few) do exist. Additionally, some of the oldest worms are UNIX based! If you consider your data important, you need to accept these facts.

That said, there are certainly (and not surprisingly) very few viruses in the wild viable under Unix. This is partly because of access restrictions in the environment. For example, if a user runs a file that is infected with a virus, it can only do what this user has privileges to do (under normal conditions-not much) so at very least, it cannot spread to other systems. But, if a superuser (or anyone with full permissions) runs a virus, it could possibly infect the whole system and travel to other systems... etc.

What user of a personal Mac doesn't have full administrator priveleges over his own machine?


Also, one must remember that viruses are much less prevalent under UNIX operating systems simply because those operating systems are not as widely used for home systems as DOS/Windows operating systems. If more people used UNIX operating systems at home, obviously more viruses would target them. The rise in popularity of the GNU/Linux operating system, has certainly shown this to be true."

Nothing like saying exactly what I just said. "Security through obscurity." It's not a phrase *I* made up. Do a search for it on Mac websites and you'll find an awful lot of instances of it.

Besides, if it was worth it -- i.e., if Macs made up as much of the computing world as Windows machines do today and a great deal of havoc could be wreaked with a virus -- a determined virus writer would find a way. To doubt that -- to think it's impossible -- is . . . unwise.

And, stating for the record as I have numerous times, I have *nothing* against Macs, other than the brand premium built into the price. I only respond to Mac hubris, and that's a user issue, not a hardware one. :engel017: :happy:

[reservoir]

No, it does, especially when the word is used as a term of art as it is in this sense. "Dedicated," as in, you edit with it; you do nothing else with it. No e-mail. No web surfing. No games. You connect to the Internet only as absolutely necessary to download updates, etc., if you ever do at all. That's how Neil meant it and that's how it's understood in a technical sense.

...I'm laughing to myself about this one still. I think we should call a *draw* on it cause' either way we are both kind of right.

Dedicated to a purpose of video editing, burning cds, filesharing.....whatever you machine is *DEDICATED* to.......heck it may even be *DEDICATED* to the holy ghost, but if it is physically connected to an internet connection (most commonly an always-on, High Speed connection such as DSL or Cable) then it is susceptible to being exploited whether you actually pull up an Internet Explorer browser and view pages or not. Having a dedicated video editing machine connected to an internet connection (For the purpose of security updates, antivirus definitions, etc) does not automatically "disqualify" your machine from being a *dedicated video editing machine*. That's like saying I have a machine that I ONLY edit videos on but it does NOT QUALIFY to be represented as a dedicated video editing machine because it's connected to the internet. Even funnier....I have a machine that I ONLY edit videos on but it does NOT QUALIFY to be dedicated because I burn my edited videos to CD and DVD with. That would make it a Video Editing AND CD BURNING machine, thus it cannot be *Dedicated* soley to one purpose. See how silly that sounds? I guess our definitions of *dedicated* are slightly different. So I'm letting this one go because otherwise it will never end....we are both right in our own way about the loose term *Dedicated*. That's it....I'm done. If I have to type dedicated one more time I'm gonna break this keyboard. I am hearby *DEDICATED* to ending this thread. Damn...I did it again....

~reservoir~

PS - No hard feelings about the Mac Jokes. I think they are funny. Those Mac users are all in the Steve Jobs cult anyway. Brainwashed they all are I tell ya'!! But OSX is still pretty superior to Windows on a technical basis. It has been only in the last few years I've come to terms with my own guilt and admitted it. I lived for years in denial and couldn't fathom to admit that my trusty Winblows machine was not the superior being it once was. Now that Macs are getting afforable (Mac Mini) I'll probably jump ship and test out the waters full time on a Mac. Of course I'll keep my PC. I couldn't imagine living without my spam / spyware and security exploits.

As far as the viruses go...I'm gonna let that argument go to. Well almost...If macs ruled the world more than likely there would still be a fair share of viruses but I don't believe it would be anywhere near the numbers Windows puts up every year. If anyone has ever done any programming you might agree with me on this. If Windows didn't have 18 million ways to execute threads and process, and didn't have every part of its operating system integrated and linked with API wrappers and OLE calls, then maybe it would be harder to write viruses and exploits. To my knowledge Unix has remained pretty much the same over the years and thus made it harder to code *Catastrophic* viruses like the ones on windows. I'll admit I don't know Jack when it comes to programming on the Mac so I could be wrong. But I know for a fact that the more integrations Microsoft makes, whether it be with IE, or WHATEVER....it makes it easier to hijack one program and reverse engineer it to comprimise a whole system. I see that Mac is touting this whole *integrated SPOTLIGHT* thing. Sounds great huh? For all I know that might be the loophole hackers are waiting for. It's really just simple programming sense....the more things you have to make work together simulaneously and flawlessly, then it begins to become a real challenge for application security as opposed to just using seperate programs which run in seperate memory space and have their own threads and processes which are not as easily hijacked. And lastly, many of the viruses that HAVE been known to Linux, Unix / Mac were Protocol based. Meaning they exploited holes in the network fabric of IP / IPX / Telnet / FTP, etc and not necessarily the core of the operating system as we are used to seeing with windows. There...I let it go now!! Thanks for listening to my side. It's been a swell time on here tonight. Both sides represented well and respectfully. l8r!! ~reservoir~

PPS - Damn that was a long PS!!

[kappa22]

I'm going to type a lot less than you guys...

OSX = security (NOT necessarily stability). Obviously, this is on account of the UNIX kernel, which was originally designed to be multi-user, single-system, where one user's mistakes don't take down the whole ship.

Windows = flexibility. Unfortunately, this, along with its omnipresence and architecture, renders it ridiculously susceptable to viruses and code alterations. The fact that the kernel and shell are intermeshed so much (compared to the closed-kernel design of UNIX) also adds to the fun.

[MattC]

I'm such a little tweaker!!!!!!

:grin: :grin: :grin: :grin: :grin:

and cute too! :thumbsup:

[kappa22]

Every time you post, your avatar makes me imagine it in a Sideshow Bob voice :D

[reservoir]

I'm going to type a lot less than you guys...

OSX = security (NOT necessarily stability). Obviously, this is on account of the UNIX kernel, which was originally designed to be multi-user, single-system, where one user's mistakes don't take down the whole ship.

Windows = flexibility. Unfortunately, this, along with its omnipresence and architecture, renders it ridiculously susceptable to viruses and code alterations. The fact that the kernel and shell are intermeshed so much (compared to the closed-kernel design of UNIX) also adds to the fun.

Yep...that pretty much paraphrased my ramblings!! I will freely admit that Windows has gotten increasingly better over the years (exclucing Windows ME of course!!) with the NT kernel. The *New Technology* kernel, as it was originally called, was based very much on emulating the the way Unix addressed it's users and programs by providing secured memory allocation for each user, and each process.

For those not so technically inclined...this means that instead of one program locking up and crashing the whole system like in Windows 95, 98, ME; every program has its own *dedicated* space. <-------There's that word again, LOL!! If "pr0nviewer.exe" crashes on the NT core, it will only be dumped from the allocated memory address affecting no other programs (USUALLY!!) instead of shared memory and bringing down other programs and usually the whole system. Commonly known as a "Stack Dump" or "BSOD". We used to joke around and say....AWE MAN.....the computer just took a big shit while I working on something important....referring to the "Dump". I would like to see windows keep getting better and better....Who wouldn't? At least Redmond is finally taking security seriously with their Latest XP Service Pack 2. It pretty much locks the computer down tighter than a catholic nun sanctuary!! It still doesn't do alot for Spyware and Adware, but that is what using the Firefox browser is for. If you don't already use it...dump IE and use Firefox (http://www.mozilla.org/products/firefox/). Not only does it load pages about 30% faster in most cases, it it virtually immune to spyware and adware due to the NON-IMPLEMENTATION of Active-X. This is what has killed IE and been the downfall for years.

So that is it for now. Go Windows, Go Mac, Go Firefox, Go Technology!! ~reservoir~

[J.R. Hudson]

Nothing like a good ole MAC/PC/LINUX debate. I wish I had a dedciated EDITING machine that did not require access to the net or any other function; must be nice.

In the mean time I use Norton and have no issues. And whats with all of the stability problems? What are you people doing to your computers?

[MattC]

They're going to bad places Johnny. The kind of dark, seedy places you and I would be too afraid to frequent for fear of catching something...

[J.R. Hudson]

Yeah, like my wifes wrath.

[reservoir]

...news, weather, dvxuser.com, pr0n, mtvnews.com, do some work,movieweb.net, pr0n, back to dvxuser.com, check the news again, pr0n, go home. Get on home computer. Dvxuser.com, pr0n, burn some dvd's, check dvxuser for any new posts, pr0n, go to bed. Wake up. Repeat!!

*I have no idea why I have so much SPAM and Spyware....why would I want Viagra, Breast Implants, Penis enlargement, new home mortgage at 1%, and free money to play online poker?*

Geez......~reservoir~

[kappa22]

Yeah, if you are aware of what you're doing, it takes zero effort to keep your computer clean, sober, and stable. Mac OSX appeals to those people who don't pay attention to stuff like that, and anyone who complains about how hard (or impossible) it is to keep a Windows machine virus-, adware-, spyware-, and problem-free shouldn't have ever gone near Windows in the first place. Just know your stuff... that's all.

[Amahp]

No internet connection is the best anti virus protection for me!

[reservoir]

No internet connection is the best anti virus protection for me!

Are you posting telepathically? ~reservoir~

[kappa22]

Hiooohhh!!!

[Sirius_Doggy]

My guess is that Reservoir is like me - He doesn't edit on the same machine he surfs...
The original question was:
Best Anti-Virus software for editing machine!!!!

[Amahp]

Are you posting telepathically? ~reservoir~

I have two machines, one for editing and this one just to surf the net.

[reservoir]

I have two machines, one for editing and this one just to surf the net.

I know buddy...I was just joking around with you. I figured you had a least 2 machines or more!! ZING!! Thank you, Thank you, I'm here all year!! (unfortunately!!) :( ~reservoir

[Frizzle Fry]

Windows XP Pro SP1 (kept up to date);
Zonealarm (free);
Avast Antivirus (free);
Surf wherever I want, no viruses. Never crashes.

[reservoir]

Frizzy Fry....No XP SP2? Blasphemous!! What kind of Micro$oft patron are you? If you had SP2 you would most likely be able to ditch port monitoring utils like zone alarm because it will shut down any and ALL ports from incoming traffic unless you specify otherwise. It's still nice to know who's *knocking on the door* though. ~reservoir~

[Frizzle Fry]

Yeah, i'm not bothering w/SP2 cuz i'm waiting for XP Pro x64 to come out next month. til then no probs here.

[Sirius_Doggy]

i'm waiting for XP Pro x64 to come out next month.

Next Month??? Are they really releasing it next month? I heard next year.

[reservoir]

Here's the latest:

"Word has leaked that the 64-bit version of Windows will be RTM (released to manufacturers) on March 28th."

I heard this from my Sister's Husband's Brother-in-Law. Or commonly know as *My Brother*!! Just kidding. Actually that's just the lastest *juice* flying around the forums and on Google. We can all hope it's true!! XP desperately needs a PowerMac-esque system that runs in native 64-bit. ~reservoir~

The RC's (Release Candidates) have been out for a while now so it should drop soon.

[kappa22]

I'm trying out that NOD32 business, and so far, it's everything I thought it could be.

[kappa22]

Mmmm... native....

[Frizzle Fry]

Yup, by late April we should be able to purchase an OEM copy of x64, and I've heard those who bought a 64-bit system with 32-bit XP will be able to get a free upgrade. No definitive word on that yet, but it sounds like they're leaning that way. As far as OEM, I think you'll just be able to buy a power cord or something like that. Call your favorite retailer and ask.

It'll be awhile before we see any of our favorite apps in 64-bit, but having an OS is a great start. At least the OS will be utilizing the full power of my AMD 64FX-51. (I haven't tried any of the XP x64 CPP releases, but have heard/read that it's much more responsive, as well it should be.)

Avast! Antivirus runs in 64-bit natively, and it's free. If anyone is interested in this stuff, check out http://www.planetamd64.com

[reservoir]

Thankfully, *most* of our legacy 32-bit apps will still run on XP 64. I've read that *some* may even run faster....so.....until I get the newest RC or RTM.....I'll be a sceptic. ~reservoir~

[Frizzle Fry]

Yah, i've heard the only issues people have had were with some printer drivers. (And of course the yahoos that didn't know what they were doing.)

[Take_1]

Back to the original question of which antivirus program is the best for a PC editing station...

The very first post from TylerGred is correct. NOD32 has the lowest overhead on system resources and has NEVER failed in independent testing 28 times in a row. Major corporations who develop software use this program on their own systems. Its inexpensive too... around $35.00 I think.

I used to have Norton. Once I installed NOD32 it immediately started finding things that Norton never even knew were there.

[reservoir]

can't we let this thread die? ~reservoir~