Antivirus bloatware may be killing your (not so old) Windows PC

My fav is Kaspersky, but idk how to run it anymore with the stupid Congress mandating it be blocked in the US.

Not even sure how legal that is to block consumer programs like that
 
A decade or so ago, Norton was the hog that killed performance - installing, updating and scanning was dismal . Then WA-LAH, Symantec saw the light and miraculously cured the problem and made everything unbelievably fast and unintrusive. Well so much for that. They bought Lifelock and that seemed to open the gates of the same ole-same ole. It's become an advertising medium - buy this, upgrade to that, change to gaming edition, use our VPN,use our cloud and all that poop.

Win 10 started it then Win 11 has progressed to become the advertising medium. AI in browsers have killed the unmitigated advertising that we had to see to go to the sites of browser results. But not for long, Its going to be ever more miserable with AI soon
 
My fav is Kaspersky, but idk how to run it anymore with the stupid Congress mandating it be blocked in the US.

Not even sure how legal that is to block consumer programs like that
It's simple to bypass the geo block with a VPN or proxy, but I have no idea if Kaspersky would block a purchase if the buyer's address was US-based. Also not sure if they have a crypto-purchase option. There's a couple things you could check on.
 
1 Minute work around:
Hold down Ctrl, Alt & Delete
Select Task Manager
Click Startup tab
Right click on what you don't need and select Disable
Reboot
 
My fav is Kaspersky, but idk how to run it anymore with the stupid Congress mandating it be blocked in the US.

Not even sure how legal that is to block consumer programs like that
I can only speak for the free on demand scanner that is/used to be available. I stopped using it when Kaspersky were blacklisted by the U.S. but I doubt if I really needed too.

Regarding the on demand free scanner, I found it to be one of the best, customizable and thourough. With one caveat:

Every update: rougly it seemed dailly or 36 hours, it's necessary to download the whole program again as database is integrated into the program. Up date means update everything.

I forget the size, but it's not small and would be pretty useless on a slow connection, say anything below 5mbs down.

It was one of the few I liked and actually found stuff a couple of times. Tracking cookies that Malwarebytes doesn't class as "tracking," cookies.

Other on demand. Be interested to hear opinions.

There is Sophos free. Need to register though. Doesn't need updating as it doesn't use a list on the actual PC. It was the best at finding tracking cookies. Stopped using it. Heard it wasn't much good, so I stopped. Pretty OCD about that kind of thing. Anyone use it?

Finally another one that is free, but requires registration. "HouseCallLauncher64." by Trend Micro.
It quickly updates the database before every scan. A standard on demand scan takes about 2 mins and focuses mostly on windows files, (it seems to me.) But we can make custom on demand scans which are very thourough. For any Folder at any directory. It can take a while.
Once it picked up or flagged an exe file as malicious Trojan. But I knew that file was safe.
After scanning that file with other Antimalware and checking on the big online database (sorry forgot name.) It was indeed a false positive.

It's the only one I use now, about once every two weeks as a supplement to realtime
Malwarebytes, and occaisional on demand only Defender scans.

Anyone have any good recommendations for free on demand scanners? Or comments about the ones I mentioned?
 
I recently installed a tool, to mass download pictures in one click advised through Ai. Only problem was the installer of the tool did mention, do you accept the installation of this and that, and while I clicked no on all, it still installed that.

In seconds I got a Antivirus, a Anonymous browser and a general health checkup tool installed without permission. Getting wrid of it was the tougher part. It took me more then 15 minutes to de-install and remove any of the bloat that came with it.

I don't use a antivirus because I know what I do. And if I suspect anything try housecall.trendmicro.com.
 
I recently installed a tool, to mass download pictures in one click advised through Ai. Only problem was the installer of the tool did mention, do you accept the installation of this and that, and while I clicked no on all, it still installed that.

In seconds I got a Antivirus, a Anonymous browser and a general health checkup tool installed without permission. Getting wrid of it was the tougher part. It took me more then 15 minutes to de-install and remove any of the bloat that came with it.

I don't use a antivirus because I know what I do. And if I suspect anything try housecall.trendmicro.com.
So now A.I. can also funtion as Malware. Sheesh. It was bound to happen I suppose.
Thanks for sharing your story. It's useful to know.

Personally, even if I did know enough to get rid of malware by myself, there is no harm running an on demand scan, or two. Perhaps defender on demand scan, and housecall. That way no worries.

Just my two cents.
 
It was recommending me a tool, to do what I wanted to. Even tho I opted "no" in both installers, it still did install and activated a anti virus I was not asking for including the rest.
 
I recently installed a tool, to mass download pictures in one click advised through Ai. Only problem was the installer of the tool did mention, do you accept the installation of this and that, and while I clicked no on all, it still installed that.
OK, we both kinda know what type of "bulk images" you're talking about. Let's call it. "female primates of the genus Homo in their natural state", albeit in most cases with hair removed, for better clarity of observation.

One anthropological site in particular, used to provide its own bulk image collection tool. However that software's abilities were neutered, years ago. It seemed image storing repositories were losing ad revenues. One image dispensing site initiated a double (or triple), click through system to access an image for download. I believe the sole purpose of that was to defeat "rippers".

First, I am of the opinion that bulk rippers have lost their efficacy, and are too risky to bother with. That, along with oftentimes unflattering and repetitive positioning of the subject matter, has led to sometimes disappointment in the rewards.

Accordingly, my approach has been to use free downloading of either zip or RAR files, and learning to live without images unobtainable otherwise. The only exception being, "cherrry picking", (pun intended), individual images from sets which might be useful for desktop wallpaper.

Bare** in mind so called "free downloads" are at very slow speeds. However, as modern broadband allows parallel downloads, and as there are a few different repositories to draw from simultaneously. this isn't too much of a setback. However upon receipt of said files, I recommend a legitimate AV solution to scan them for malware.

If I am incorrect in any of my assumptions, apologies. If you deem any further discussion. or perhaps links necessary, please PM me.

Yours truly, captaincranky AAS.

** Intentionally incorrect spelling
 
Last edited:
Lunduke has zero credibility. He's considered a grifter, troll, and right-wing whackjob. His OS vulnerability article is rife with infactualities and completely unsubstantiable.

Specifically, he uses apples-to-oranges CVE counting.

Treating Debian Linux CVEs like Windows/iOS CVEs is wholly invalid: Debian CVE counts are issues across thousands of packaged apps and libraries which come from GNU and many other suppliers, not just the OS. Even CVEdetails.com warns its statistics “may not be reliable.”

Suggesting a higher CVE count simply identifies a less-secure OS is completely flawed and not supported. CVE volume is affected by reporting/processing policies and changes, not just worsening security. The problem with this oversimplified reasoning is CVE counts do not directly measure real-world security. A rise in CVEs can simply reflect more active reporting, more transparency, or changes in disclosure policy, rather than an actual increase in exploitable weaknesses. Implying a correlatable and causal relationship between a CVE count and vulnerability of an OS is not accurate nor reliable.

Likewise with Android vs. iOS. Considering the superficial notion iOS has 10% of Android’s CVE count, so therefore it's 1,000% more secure is equally flawed as stating a higher CVE count equates to more vulnerabilities. CVE counts are not a valid or industry-recognised security metric for the simple and obvious reasons stated above. Disclosure scope and CVE Numbering Authority (CNA) practices differ widely with each OS, vendor, project, 3rd-party CNA. Some, like Debian include thousands of packages, others only include the kernel or core system. Two OS creators can have grossly varying CNA scope definitions.

Again, superficially stating Linux is less secure based solely on CVE counts ignores, in 2024, the Linux kernel became a CNA and began issuing many more CVEs, inflating totals bc of policy, not bc of vulnerability.

Making a sweeping claim open source is the more vulnerable than closed source conflates and incorrectly equates code transparency with insecurity, and disregards severity/exploitation context, for which the article does not normalize.

Using total historical CVEs for some claims and cherry-picking recent major versions for others, without normalizing for code size, age, install base, or disclosure practices, falsely biases the conclusion, verifiable in the article’s own methodology description.

You missed my point:

Of course, this does not mean that systems with the fewest vulnerabilities are the best, as several of them might be newer or aren't that popular. Rather, all systems are vulnerable, and that several vulnerabilities are not known until systems are infected by malware, and are fixed given patching and updating. The latter lead to increasing costs, and dealing with that become difficult given reliance on volunteers.

In contrast is this outrageous claim:

A default Linux distro + UFW is more secure, faster, and safer than Windows, and Linux doesn't need antivirus. it's a no brainer, really.

All systems are vulnerable, and whether or not they need to fix that through patching or protect using security programs is dependent on what malware is made to exploit those vulnerabilities.
 
OK, we both kinda know what type of "bulk images" you're talking about. Let's call it. "female primates of the genus Homo in their natural state", albeit in most cases with hair removed, for better clarity of observation.

One anthropological site in particular, used to provide its own bulk image collection tool. However that software's abilities were neutered, years ago. It seemed image storing repositories were losing ad revenues. One image dispensing site initiated a double (or triple), click through system to access an image for download. I believe the sole purpose of that was to defeat "rippers".

First, I am of the opinion that bulk rippers have lost their efficacy, and are too risky to bother with. That, along with oftentimes unflattering and repetitive positioning of the subject matter, has led to sometimes disappointment in the rewards.

Accordingly, my approach has been to use free downloading of either zip or RAR files, and learning to live without images unobtainable otherwise. The only exception being, "cherrry picking", (pun intended), individual images from sets which might be useful for desktop wallpaper.

Bare** in mind so called "free downloads" are at very slow speeds. However, as modern broadband allows parallel downloads, and as there are a few different repositories to draw from simultaneously. this isn't too much of a setback. However upon receipt of said files, I recommend a legitimate AV solution to scan them for malware.

If I am incorrect in any of my assumptions, apologies. If you deem any further discussion. or perhaps links necessary, please PM me.

Yours truly, captaincranky AAS.

** Intentionally incorrect spelling
Funny. Interesting too. Of course we may all download whatever images we want. I know you would agree with that.
Interesting what you said about the failure to obey users, "NO," options. I'll be careful too.
 
It was recommending me a tool, to do what I wanted to. Even tho I opted "no" in both installers, it still did install and activated a anti virus I was not asking for including the rest.
That's pretty bad. Still thanks again for posting. Now we know!!

Edit: We know how to be careful I mean. Nothing else!
 
Errrmm, I feel a bit silly preaching to the choir about the registry stuff.
Everyone on an enthusiast site would already be well aware of that. :mad:

(Post #50)
 
Opera is too much of a memory hog for me for regular use. I do use it daily, but for specific subsets of sites/tabs that I prefer to keep segregated from FF just for convenience. Used to use Vivaldi minimally, but it's also a memory hog, and their autoupdate process is stupid.
Here's the thing, Firefox bleeds memory, not simply uses a bunch of it. Once a tab or window is closed, FF won't return any RAM to the system. As a result, I'm rebooting this relic 2 or 3 times a day, maybe more. I'll run up against the 8GB available, and "eccentricities" begin to manifest themselves, and that assumes the browser doesn't straight up crash. However, after a restart, Task manager shows only about 1/2 system RAM in use even after relaunching FF, with all previous windows and tabs retained.

Speaking, of "eccentrics", I'm one of them. I always seem come up with different results, in comparison to other members. I'm also somewhat of a hoarder, especially with respect to PCs I've built over the years. A last count, I have 7, and a stack of boxes, which will hopefully become #8, in the not too distant future. So, I don't game, nor do I feel obligated to have one fearsome PC that requires me praying to it multiple times a day, in the direction of Redmond. So, "different, (not networked), horses for different courses", is my approach.

That fact that AV solutions do use system resources, is a blatant and patent statement of the obvious. One which has been well known over at least the past 2 decades. Only 2 of my PCs run it. One, is dedicated to the appreciation of female erotic art. Opera is my browser of choice for it, while AVG free is its AV. The other is strictly for email, banking, and making a nuisance of myself here at TechSpot and Quora. Here, Avira free is the AV of choice. The 3rd is for image editing and a file repository. The 4th, is waiting for me to summon the ambition to come up with a strategy for integrating at least 12TB of files, simply so I'll know where they are.

As for "Opera being a memory hog", my usage doesn't bear this out. I can have several windows open, with perhaps as many 200 tabs open on multiple windows, without a whimper of protest from the browser. (Although, it does give up the ghost and crashes dramatically, once every few months). This is an ancient Core 2 Duo E7x00 CPU. The only time I get "low memory warnings", is when I have too many windows open in Explorer. A right click, "close all windows", remedies the issue.

One thing that has to be considered is that the tabs in it are static, merely pages of thumbnails, not actively remaining in communication with a server. Opera puts unused tabs to sleep, and at least in my case, more effectively than FF's solution.

Both web machines run Windows 7, and despite dire warnings of doom, gloom, and verbal assaults on my intelligence, good old W7 works like a charm. I shut off updates at least 10 years ago. Some members crap their pants if they don't get a Windows update every half hour, I crap mine when I'm confronted with one.

It would appear that many of you have realized that, "M$ doesn't play nice with its users", preferring to use and abuse them. In fact, in a last ditch effort to dispatch any "malingerers" on Windows 7, M$ released a "final security update" for W7. What it accomplished was to make it impossible to navigate to even a site as benign as Walmart, without blowing up redirect warnings. Needless to say, the "wayback machine", (restore), earned its keep after that fiasco.
(IIRC, I changed my pants after that. Or did I? ICR) :eek: :rolleyes:

To whom it may concern: I offer this post, not in any way to convince others to follow it as "advice". But rather as an explanation of my person preferences and procedures.
 
Last edited:
Mmm, not to bad if it's at 0%. As you said with all the linked processes 1.4%.

Not awful. But when an antimalware program is not updating or scanning and just sitting at the desktop, I expect it, in totality to be 0.Xx%

Thing is that's a snap shot in time. Not saying you are wrong at all, and it would require monitoring for a while with something more detailed than task manager.

It is better than I expected though. My bias against Norton runs deep! Heh Heh.

About System Mechanic. A very well known maintenance, house cleaning for windows software.
Years ago I had it installed. It's likely one of the safe ones, and does appear to clean up a lot of junk.

Still I could never really notice before and after performance differenence, and then years ago when I got more interested in PCs, and how to get windows to run with less bloat, I stopped using all those kind of programs. Some of them are just snake oil. Registry cleaners are usually best avoided too.

I do all that stuff myself, and much more. But I don't mess with the registry just for the sake of cleaning it. Some registry tweaks are really useful, but as everyone will know, backup first.
A lot of damage can be done, which is hard to trace if a mistake is made. Likely not, but the potential for really bad stuff always exists when in the registry.
Thanks for you input!
 
Here's the thing, Firefox bleeds memory, not simply uses a bunch of it. Once a tab or window is closed, FF won't return any RAM to the system. As a result, I'm rebooting this relic 2 or 3 times a day, maybe more. I'll run up against the 8GB available, and "eccentricities" begin to manifest themselves, and that assumes the browser doesn't straight up crash. However, after a restart, Task manager shows only about 1/2 system RAM in use even after relaunching FF, with all previous windows and tabs retained.

Speaking, of "eccentrics", I'm one of them. I always seem come up with different results, in comparison to other members. I'm also somewhat of a hoarder, especially with respect to PCs I've built over the years. A last count, I have 7, and a stack of boxes, which will hopefully become #8, in the not too distant future. So, I don't game, nor do I feel obligated to have one fearsome PC that requires me praying to it multiple times a day, in the direction of Redmond. So, "different, (not networked), horses for different courses", is my approach.

That fact that AV solutions do use system resources, is a blatant and patent statement of the obvious. One which has been well known over at least the past 2 decades. Only 2 of my PCs run it. One, is dedicated to the appreciation of female erotic art. Opera is my browser of choice for it, while AVG free is its AV. The other is strictly for email, banking, and making a nuisance of myself here at TechSpot and Quora. Here, Avira free is the AV of choice. The 3rd is for image editing and a file repository. The 4th, is waiting for me to summon the ambition to come up with a strategy for integrating at least 12TB of files, simply so I'll know where they are.

As for "Opera being a memory hog", my usage doesn't bear this out. I can have several windows open, with perhaps as many 200 tabs open on multiple windows, without a whimper of protest from the browser. (Although, it does give up the ghost and crashes dramatically, once every few months). This is an ancient Core 2 Duo E7x00 CPU. The only time I get "low memory warnings", is when I have too many windows open in Explorer. A right click, "close all windows", remedies the issue.

One thing that has to be considered is that the tabs in it are static, merely pages of thumbnails, not actively remaining in communication with a server. Opera puts unused tabs to sleep, and at least in my case, more effectively than FF's solution.

Both web machines run Windows 7, and despite dire warnings of doom, gloom, and verbal assaults on my intelligence, good old W7 works like a charm. I shut off updates at least 10 years ago. Some members crap their pants if they don't get a Windows update every half hour, I crap mine when I'm confronted with one.

It would appear that many of you have realized that, "M$ doesn't play nice with its users", preferring to use and abuse them. In fact, in a last ditch effort to dispatch any "malingerers" on Windows 7, M$ released a "final security update" for W7. What it accomplished was to make it impossible to navigate to even a site as benign as Walmart, without blowing up redirect warnings. Needless to say, the "wayback machine", (restore), earned its keep after that fiasco.
(IIRC, I changed my pants after that. Or did I? ICR) :eek: :rolleyes:

To whom it may concern: I offer this post, not in any way to convince others to follow it as "advice". But rather as an explanation of my person preferences and procedures.
I routinely have Chrome with 20+ tabs, Opera, almost as many, Vivaldi streaming either Oldies or classical music, & the Edge used for streaming video; either from Xfinity or Crunchyroll. Also have these installed, though not likely used: FF, Duckduckgo, & of course, the Norton browser. I have had too few problems to remember any.
 
I routinely have Chrome with 20+ tabs, Opera, almost as many, Vivaldi streaming either Oldies or classical music, & the Edge used for streaming video; either from Xfinity or Crunchyroll. Also have these installed, though not likely used: FF, Duckduckgo, & of course, the Norton browser. I have had too few problems to remember any.
Wait a minute. Did I read correctly, there is a NORTON browser? Or do you mean add on?

Different topic. DDG. I had high hope for it a few years back, used their full browser, not just the addon for mobile.

It released a Windows fully functional beta browser a few years back unfortunately:

1. It was found that they had shared search results with MS Edge team. Ruined their credibility.
But they promised never to do it again. I liked the idea of what they were releasing so much that I thought I would install it and give it whirl.

2.Well that never happened. There was no news about it. I search a lot and found no reviews. Also it doesn't seem to be updated. It is availbable as a desktop full browser client from this very site, but few downloads and no user reviews. Feels like it' s dead. Although the add on is still fairly popular. Info on the browser itself is very sparse.

Any actually use the Windows PC version of DuckDuckGod (DDG) full browser? Impressions?
 
It's simple to bypass the geo block with a VPN or proxy, but I have no idea if Kaspersky would block a purchase if the buyer's address was US-based. Also not sure if they have a crypto-purchase option. There's a couple things you could check on.
That's the concern. I have US based digital system.
 
That's the concern. I have US based digital system.
There're always other, better options to consider. Before I retired from tech I became fond of Malwarebytes, they always had high detection scores, they have a built-in rootkit scanner (used to be a separate tool), and it still has a free version.
I see they now have a paid option too, so it'd be worthwhile comparing the features and benefits of free vs paid. I found MB much easier on system resources than others, specifically AVG, which I liked because of the free version which used the same search engine as the paid version, but it was hard on my system, slowed it down terribly.
Nowadays I don't own or use any Windows computers, only OpenBSD and GNU/Linux. Life is good, no viruses, adware, trojans, ransomware, miners (except for my own), or any other malware. OpenBSD is secure and most of my Linux systems are hardened, even though a base install with only the UFW enabled is more than sufficiently secure for everyday surfing.
Re: Kaspersky, if you stay on the right side of the law you can't be busted for breaking it. And, considering there are so many other options and considering Kaspersky is good, but it's not the best, it's not a risk worth taking, IMO.
 
Wait a minute. Did I read correctly, there is a NORTON browser? Or do you mean add on?

Different topic. DDG. I had high hope for it a few years back, used their full browser, not just the addon for mobile.

It released a Windows fully functional beta browser a few years back unfortunately:

1. It was found that they had shared search results with MS Edge team. Ruined their credibility.
But they promised never to do it again. I liked the idea of what they were releasing so much that I thought I would install it and give it whirl.

2.Well that never happened. There was no news about it. I search a lot and found no reviews. Also it doesn't seem to be updated. It is availbable as a desktop full browser client from this very site, but few downloads and no user reviews. Feels like it' s dead. Although the add on is still fairly popular. Info on the browser itself is very sparse.

Any actually use the Windows PC version of DuckDuckGod (DDG) full browser? Impressions?
I use different browsers for different things; DDG is for forums that are for movies, TV, & such. The site was not working on chrome.

One thing I dislike about DDG is that I cannot save a webpage on my PC. Have not tried much else on DDG.
 
I use different browsers for different things; DDG is for forums that are for movies, TV, & such. The site was not working on chrome.

One thing I dislike about DDG is that I cannot save a webpage on my PC. Have not tried much else on DDG.
Got it thanks.

I tried to install it but total fail. Got a pop up. From memory reason below.

The reason: I got rid of edge and anything to do with it.
Therefore MS Web V2 (that's not the right name, but I cant' check as I don't have it.) Anyway, its some sort of chromium thing that DDG uses, and needs to install and use.

So the subject is now MOOT for me.

Thanks for your reply though.
 
Last edited:
Got it thanks.

I tried to install it but total fail. Got a pop up. From memory reason below.

The reason: I got rid of edge and anything to do with it.
Therefore MS Web V2 (that's not the right name, but I cant' check as I don't have it.) Anyway, its some sort of chromium thing that DDG uses, and needs to install and use.

So the subject is now mute for me.

Thanks for your reply though.
Don't you mean 'moot'?
 
Back