spyware and virus protection overrated?
So, I was looking at some dell computers and thinking about maybe getting a new laptop.
looking at one laptop, I figured I would go through the customization bit and see if I could shave a few dollars off the price.
Among other options, they have preinstalled McAfee virus protection software at various levels (but no option to not have any protection at all). Since I wasn't being to serious anyway, I clicked on the "help me decide" link and it game me a sales pitch for the software.
Did you know that 4 out of every 10 internet users have spyware, adware or both[1]?
An online safety study[2] found 81 percent of home PCs lack protection against viruses, spyware and hackers.
So... first of all, these numbers are based off of studies and surveys performed or published in 2005.
Secondly, by my math, if 100% of users who have "spyware, adware or both" are users who have no protection(unlikely) that would mean that 41 % of users have no protection and no infections- better than 50% of unprotected users!
This seems like a better selling point for not wasting money on their protection.
Of course, it's better to have protection than not, but they aren't making a very good case in their favor.
I'm just annoyed that the cheapest option is still a 15 month subscription to a virus scan service that I don't want. (because I don't care for McAfee)
looking at one laptop, I figured I would go through the customization bit and see if I could shave a few dollars off the price.
Among other options, they have preinstalled McAfee virus protection software at various levels (but no option to not have any protection at all). Since I wasn't being to serious anyway, I clicked on the "help me decide" link and it game me a sales pitch for the software.
Did you know that 4 out of every 10 internet users have spyware, adware or both[1]?
An online safety study[2] found 81 percent of home PCs lack protection against viruses, spyware and hackers.
So... first of all, these numbers are based off of studies and surveys performed or published in 2005.
Secondly, by my math, if 100% of users who have "spyware, adware or both" are users who have no protection(unlikely) that would mean that 41 % of users have no protection and no infections- better than 50% of unprotected users!
This seems like a better selling point for not wasting money on their protection.
Of course, it's better to have protection than not, but they aren't making a very good case in their favor.
I'm just annoyed that the cheapest option is still a 15 month subscription to a virus scan service that I don't want. (because I don't care for McAfee)