The Windows virus issue is such a big problem, and whats even more mind 
boggling is that this is acceptable to most Windows users.

So what exactly is the problem that I am referring to?

Extreme example:

A 2.2 GHz dual-core processor, with 4Gb ram is 75% used up by the virus 
protection software. In other words, you get to use about 25% of the 
hardware that you paid for.

Most common is 50/50, but the extreme example does occur in my environment.

For those who think this is OK, let me tell you about the days prior to 
windows, real machines had a OS overhead of maybe 2% to 5%, extreme 
overheads went to maybe 15%. Anything higher was considered 
unacceptable, and a problem to be solved.

For those who think that I am exaggerating or enlarging the facts beyond 
bounds or the truth, let me tell you that this is my experience. I don't 
spend allot of money on hardware, I don't think I should pay to process 
all of the virus related processes. To the developers of virus and spy 
ware software, and those who rationalize the acceptance of anti-virus 
software, how dare you! To think it is OK for me to spend my hard earned 
money to run code that does not doing anything for me at all.

What can we do?

Throwout your Windows software, Microsoft should have taken this problem 
more serious!

Look at Unix, Linux servers, and most valuable to the cause is the 
Ubuntu Desktop!

Ubuntu (LTS version) is easier to install than windows, and has over 
20,000 opensource software packages ready to be installed in a 
point-n-click method. But best of all, no virus scanning needed at all!

I will miss Programmer Studio very much!

-- 

Michael Anderson,
J3k Solutions

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *