Virex

Posted:
in Mac Software edited January 2014
Okay - I signed up for .mac. For $49 I'll give it a try. But I have a few observations to make about Virex.



First, it doesn't appear to automatically scan downloads and attachments. I have to manually do this.



Second, why aren't the virus updates available from the Apple Software Update utility? Right now it looks like I have to manually tell Virex to update. That's not very convienent.



Third, Virex is slow as can be. But that seems to be a problem with anti-virus software in general. I realize that a 60Gb hard drive is pretty sizable. So I'll forgive Virex in this case.



Anyone else?

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 14
    squashsquash Posts: 332member
    Try to remember it's not a built into OS X virus protection. Hence no update in software updates.



    I prefer to manually have it scan things..... I guess that's just me. I figure if Apple includes it with .Mac, which i also purchased it may get some better features in the future.



    Over-all I thought it was a pretty nice working app. I can't complain about the .Mac purchase, with Virex and Backup included in the package. I'm glad i made the purchase
  • Reply 2 of 14
    Squash,



    I'm warming up to .mac but I'll adopt a wait and see attitude.



    Regarding Virex I think it should be as automated as possible since I'm lazy and my laziness could end up defeating the point of the application if I don't update or scan.
  • Reply 3 of 14
    [QUOTE]Originally posted by gobble gobble:

    <strong>Second, why aren't the virus updates available from the Apple Software Update utility? Right now it looks like I have to manually tell Virex to update. That's not very convienent.</strong>[/QUOTE



    I had the same thought. Seems a bit inconvenient having to log in to .Mac to download and update Virus. I haven't poked around this yet... I do hope there is a faster way to update Virex. I want it done automatically.
  • Reply 4 of 14
    stroszekstroszek Posts: 801member
    OK. I know I'm old skool with OS 9 and all, but I know the backup part of .Mac doesn't work with OS9. Does anything other than the mail? Is it even worth it to get .Mac if you are on OS9?
  • Reply 5 of 14
    jambojambo Posts: 3,036member
    [quote]Originally posted by Stroszek:

    <strong>OK. I know I'm old skool with OS 9 and all, but I know the backup part of .Mac doesn't work with OS9. Does anything other than the mail? Is it even worth it to get .Mac if you are on OS9?</strong><hr></blockquote>



    OS 9 is dead! Get with the times



    J :cool:
  • Reply 6 of 14
    [quote]Originally posted by Jamie:

    <strong>



    OS 9 is dead! Get with the times



    J :cool: </strong><hr></blockquote>



    Stroszek,



    There is a 6.1 version (for OS 9) of Virex listed on the .mac page. The OS X version is 7.1. I don't know if there are any capability differences or if the different release numbers simply reflect the move to OS X.



    [ 07-20-2002: Message edited by: gobble gobble ]</p>
  • Reply 7 of 14
    zozo Posts: 3,115member
    I was a 110% Virex supporter in OS 8-9. But the OS X version is the WORST CRAP I have EVER seen.



    Its like they ported Virex, then stripped 90% of its functionality. Jeeeez. No auto-definition updates, no auto-scanning, no nothing!!!



    HOW in HELL is a normal Joe consumer supposed to know that????? They DONT! Hell, Im a power user and could care less to startup virex and check every damn file I download.



    Norton AntiVirus for OS X is the ONLY way to go for now.



    If I could and this were Versiontracker, it would get NEGATIVE stars. I wouldnt install it on my mac even if THEY paid me. Yeeesh
  • Reply 8 of 14
    [quote]Originally posted by ZO:

    <strong>I was a 110% Virex supporter in OS 8-9. But the OS X version is the WORST CRAP I have EVER seen.



    Its like they ported Virex, then stripped 90% of its functionality. Jeeeez. No auto-definition updates, no auto-scanning, no nothing!!!



    HOW in HELL is a normal Joe consumer supposed to know that????? They DONT! Hell, Im a power user and could care less to startup virex and check every damn file I download.



    Norton AntiVirus for OS X is the ONLY way to go for now.



    If I could and this were Versiontracker, it would get NEGATIVE stars. I wouldnt install it on my mac even if THEY paid me. Yeeesh</strong><hr></blockquote>



    I always thought Intego was top-notch, but I never saw their OS X Virus Barrier, just OS 9.
  • Reply 9 of 14
    eugeneeugene Posts: 8,254member
    Virex seems to open every single archive, whether it's .sit or .tgz or what. That slows it down a bit I think...
  • Reply 10 of 14
    stroszekstroszek Posts: 801member
    [quote]Originally posted by Jamie:

    <strong>



    OS 9 is dead! Get with the times



    J :cool: </strong><hr></blockquote>



    i know jamie, but i just can't afford it. i can barely afford $49.99!
  • Reply 11 of 14
    telomartelomar Posts: 1,804member
    [quote]Originally posted by gobble gobble:

    <strong>I always thought Intego was top-notch, but I never saw their OS X Virus Barrier, just OS 9.</strong><hr></blockquote>

    It hasn't been released yet is why Later this year some time.
  • Reply 12 of 14
    buonrottobuonrotto Posts: 6,368member
    Good idea for feedback to Apple's .Mac service: either Apple or Virex could tap into Crontab to schedule system scans like how Backup can be schduled.
  • Reply 13 of 14
    jaredjared Posts: 639member
    [quote]Originally posted by gobble gobble:

    <strong>Okay - I signed up for .mac. For $49 I'll give it a try. But I have a few observations to make about Virex.



    First, it doesn't appear to automatically scan downloads and attachments. I have to manually do this.



    Second, why aren't the virus updates available from the Apple Software Update utility? Right now it looks like I have to manually tell Virex to update. That's not very convienent.



    Third, Virex is slow as can be. But that seems to be a problem with anti-virus software in general. I realize that a 60Gb hard drive is pretty sizable. So I'll forgive Virex in this case.



    Anyone else?</strong><hr></blockquote>



    <a href="http://www.apple.com/feedback/mac/gtm.html"; target="_blank">.Mac Feedback</a>
  • Reply 14 of 14
    [quote]Originally posted by Jared:

    <strong>



    <a href="http://www.apple.com/feedback/mac/gtm.html"; target="_blank">.Mac Feedback</a></strong><hr></blockquote>



    Jared, thanks. I also posted my observations on the moderated Apple discussion boards so I know that those guys have to be reading what I wrote. Virex may do a fine job scanning, but the manaul requirements on the user make it seem archaic.
Sign In or Register to comment.