Forums
New posts
Search forums
News
Security News
Technology News
Giveaways
Giveaways, Promotions and Contests
Discounts & Deals
Reviews
Users Reviews
Video Reviews
Support
Windows Malware Removal Help & Support
Mac Malware Removal Help & Support
Mobile Malware Removal Help & Support
Blog
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Reply to thread
Menu
Install the app
Install
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
Software
Security Apps
Other security for Windows, Mac, Linux
Crystal Security 3.7 BETA
Message
<blockquote data-quote="vertigo" data-source="post: 867123" data-attributes="member: 70928"><p>Because 1) I'd rather overkill than not enough considering there should be very little overhead to doing so; 2) WD, while I hate it, has local AV whereas VS only uses the cloud and CS's local AV is new and therefore not thoroughly tested, not to mention I have no idea what engine(s) it uses and therefore how good it is; 3) I wanted to test CS to see if it would be a good complement or even a replacement to VS, especially since VS free is so limited/locked down; and 4) why not? Basically, it would be OSA (which is really in a separate category, and therefore I don't consider its inclusion to be additive to the "overkill") + VS for main protection + WD for its AV and as a last resort in case something is approved in VS that shouldn't have been, but I wanted to try out CS. Considering my experience with it so far, it's a good thing I went that route instead of going with it instead of VS, though I'm hopeful the info I provided will help its development so that maybe it can become good enough to be used instead. Even so, I see nothing wrong with using them together, since there's no conflict and they each use very little resources.</p><p></p><p>I forgot to mention that I'm also running CF/CS which, yes, adds to the "overkill," but again, it increases protection with very little overhead and, again, I'm testing it out as I am all the others.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="vertigo, post: 867123, member: 70928"] Because 1) I'd rather overkill than not enough considering there should be very little overhead to doing so; 2) WD, while I hate it, has local AV whereas VS only uses the cloud and CS's local AV is new and therefore not thoroughly tested, not to mention I have no idea what engine(s) it uses and therefore how good it is; 3) I wanted to test CS to see if it would be a good complement or even a replacement to VS, especially since VS free is so limited/locked down; and 4) why not? Basically, it would be OSA (which is really in a separate category, and therefore I don't consider its inclusion to be additive to the "overkill") + VS for main protection + WD for its AV and as a last resort in case something is approved in VS that shouldn't have been, but I wanted to try out CS. Considering my experience with it so far, it's a good thing I went that route instead of going with it instead of VS, though I'm hopeful the info I provided will help its development so that maybe it can become good enough to be used instead. Even so, I see nothing wrong with using them together, since there's no conflict and they each use very little resources. I forgot to mention that I'm also running CF/CS which, yes, adds to the "overkill," but again, it increases protection with very little overhead and, again, I'm testing it out as I am all the others. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Top