[hikaricloud]

Originally Posted by LFCJohnSmith

But back to the problem of allowing the anti virus acces to the kernels. They have said that not allowing them access to the kernels doesn't stop hackers getting to the kernels, but when hackers get to the kernels because Ms wont have said that if they release any security upgrades that would solve the problem they will issue a patch that will cause the pc to crash and give a blue screen all MS are doing is allowing hackers to have free rein while stopping the anti virus from being effective.

That is in no small way true at all. Look. If hackers want to get into your computer, and I mean REALLY want to get into your computer, they will do it no matter what. But UAC was designed to make sure things that needed access to the kernel were approved by the user. So as long as UAC is on for the average user, there is less of a problem. If Norton and McAfee had access to the kernel, viruses specifically geared towards those AVs would have direct access to the kernel without touching UAC.

Think of it this way, it's a bit easier. You have a bridge. It has a toll. The other side is Kernelsville. The bridge is the path to the kernel. The toll is UAC.

Norton and McAfee construction want to build a road that goes around the bridge, circumventing the toll. So the 2009 Honda Virus can easily get there without paying the toll.

Edit: I will accept that you have a broader knowledge than me and therefore what you say must be true but can you just tell me if MC Afee / Norton are they hopeless or are they just not as good as the others, and are they that bad that you should get shut of them? Wouldn't the large size of those two companys mean that you get new virus definition protection quicker as they have larger resources? Also can you recomend a different anti virus.

The large size of the companies does lend to definitions, but not as much as you'd think. Actually, the large market share (as I have previously stated) makes it so people who code viruses specifically make them to get around their protection specifically, since the vast majority of computer owners have these products because they came bundled with the PC, or they have heard of it and like brand recognition, as most of the world does.

One more point, I find that the GUI and the general ease of use with Mc Afee is a lot better than most other anti virus software.

Which AVs have you tried? Norton as a whole is big, bulky, and the GUI isn't THAT easy to use. AVG has a much simpler interface. McAfee is a big giant mess, and it always has been.