[DMcCunney]

Originally Posted by Xanthe

No, they hardly impact my CPU cycles. Task Manager usually shows my processor being idle 94-97% of the time. I chose them because a) they all have a small footprint on the computer, b) they do their jobs very well, and c) they all play nice with one another and most importantly, with my computer.

Whatever makes you comfortable. I looked at all that a while back and decided I didn't need it. Since nothing has bitten me in more years than I can count offhand, I have to assume I was right.

I know general information about Linux, but have never seriously considered using it. I bookmarked that information about Mint, though - thanks for mentioning it. I had never heard of that version before. One of these days maybe I'll look into Linux more.

I triple boot on the desktop: Win2K Pro SP4, WinXP Pro SP3, and Ubuntu Linux. The old notebook I use as a test bed quad boots: Win2K Pro, Ubuntu Linux, Puppy Linux, and FreeDOS.

I'd look at Ubuntu Linux. It does the best job I've seen in a Linux distro of figuring out what hardware you have, setting itself up, and Just Working. Ubuntu tries to be like Windows in this respect, and succeeds fairly well. Other distros tend to require more knowledge about the system, and ask questions during installation many new users won't know the answers to.

You can install it alongside Windows using WUBI. In that configuration, it actually lives in the Windows file system. Windows sees it as a big file. Booted into it, Linux sees that big file as a Linux file system. You can use that approach to play with it. Later, if desired, you can do a proper install, repartitioning a hard drive to provide a dedicated Linux slice. If you really get ambitious, you can install something like VMWare or VirtualBox, and run Windows and Linux side by side in virtual machines.

Actually, it's not much trouble at all. The programs are light and they all deal with specific aspects of security that I'm concerned with, given my computer usage. They merely back up common sense behavior on my part and cover any moments of inattention. I've always preferred the layered approach to security on Windows; it has served me well over the years.

I like a layered approach, too. The question is how many layers you need.

I could drop a few I have now and not lose much sleep. For instance, with a hardware firewall in the router, I could drop the software firewalls on the desktop. They are there because I was using them before I got a router and set up a home network, and are more for outgoing control than blocking incoming traffic. (I did spend some time locking down the filesystem. If anyone gets past the WPA2 encryption and into my router [unlikely], they can only get to public directories.)

For that matter, I could drop A/V, save possible on demand scanning of downloads. The last time my A/V actually caught anything real, it came from binary newsgroups, which was no surprise. My ISP subsequently dropped news server access, and I didn't make enough use of them to justify a payware news server subscription. Several free news servers provide access to the text only groups I read.

As mentioned, it's easier to keep the bad stuff out of the machine to begin with than deal with it once it's gotten in.

I dumped Norton back around 2002, IIRC, because of the problems it was causing. I came back in 2009 when they completely revamped the software and I haven't had any problems with it. It turns up the nasties it should, and has been running well with my other software. It has an extremely low false positive rate.

What nasties has it turned up? I never see anything real.

Symantec Corporate has a very low false positive rate, too. It's only been in the past few months that I've had any at all, though I was amused that they were ancient MS-DOS programs. It required exempting the directory where all of that lives from Symantec's scan, and dropping in fresh copes from the distribution archives, but it was a minor irritation.

I use a router, too. I keep Windows fully patched but I have WU notify me, not auto-update. I usually wait a few days after Patch Tuesday and check a couple of forums to see if the updates broke anything before I apply them.

I use auto-update, but have it set to let me choose when to install. I've never had an update break anything.
______
Dennis