The girls don't seem to care...tonight
As long as the mood is right.

On Thu, May 6, 2010 at 3:45 PM, Richard Stovall <[email protected]> wrote:

> When I was younger I used to opt for frequency over amplitude.  Now I'm not
> much interested in either.
>
>
>
> On Thu, May 6, 2010 at 3:35 PM, Micheal Espinola Jr <
> [email protected]> wrote:
>
>> I also remember listening to radio via amplitude modulation! ;-)
>>
>> --
>> ME2
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, May 6, 2010 at 12:29 PM, Phillip Partipilo <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>  I remember a day/age where we did all of that MS Office stuff, with 133
>>> mhz and 24 megs of RAM.  Don’t think we used AV back then, however.  Also
>>> don’t think we had the luxury of auto spell correction, uh,  that silly
>>> ribbon thing, uh.  What else… We still did all of that J
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Phillip Partipilo
>>>
>>> Parametric Solutions Inc.
>>>
>>> Jupiter, Florida
>>>
>>> (561) 747-6107
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:* John Aldrich [mailto:[email protected]]
>>> *Sent:* Thursday, May 06, 2010 2:11 PM
>>>
>>> *To:* NT System Admin Issues
>>> *Subject:* RE: NOD32 Antivirus
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Here at my office we run Word, Excel, Outlook, IE (sometimes) and AS/400
>>> terminal. These machines get bogged down on anything less than about a gig
>>> of memory. We’re mostly an Optiplex 740 shop here, and I started ordering my
>>> machines with ½ gig of memory, thinking that would be sufficient. It’s not.
>>> My personal experience is that even on reasonably powerful machines (AMD
>>> Athlon X2) you need at least a gig of memory, especially if the memory is
>>> shared with video.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> [image: John-Aldrich][image: Tile-Tools]
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:* Mike Gill [mailto:[email protected]]
>>> *Sent:* Thursday, May 06, 2010 1:56 PM
>>>
>>> *To:* NT System Admin Issues
>>> *Subject:* RE: NOD32 Antivirus
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 512MB is entirely adequate for XP if the primary use of the machine is MS
>>> Office apps. AV shouldn’t have an adverse effect on this. I would expect
>>> some performance hit, but not “bogged” down as the OP stated. He doesn’t
>>> mention CPU or CPU load, so it may not be a memory issue.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Having said that, Nod32 does seem to work well in legacy environments. I
>>> use it on a couple of clients that have older equipment and I never hear
>>> complaints, nor do I notice a loss of performance when I am working on these
>>> machines.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Mike Gill
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:* John Aldrich [mailto:[email protected]]
>>> *Sent:* Thursday, May 06, 2010 10:24 AM
>>>
>>> *To:* NT System Admin Issues
>>> *Subject:* RE: NOD32 Antivirus
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Dang… if Vipre bogs down the workstations, I dare say just about anything
>>> else you want to put on them will bog it down as well. 512 Mb is NOT a lot
>>> of memory. Have you looked at upgrading the memory on those machines? DDR
>>> and SDRAM DIMMs are not that expensive any more.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> [image: John-Aldrich][image: Tile-Tools]
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:* Jim Dandy [mailto:[email protected]]
>>> *Sent:* Thursday, May 06, 2010 1:16 PM
>>> *To:* NT System Admin Issues
>>> *Subject:* NOD32 Antivirus
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I’m interested in hearing feedback on NOD32 antivirus.  How is it in
>>> terms of accuracy of identifying and protecting computers from viruses and
>>> other sorts of malware?  How is it in terms of the load it puts on
>>> workstations?  I’ve got a bunch of old XP systems with 512 MB ram and they
>>> seem to get bogged down by other antivirus software (VIPRE and Sophos).
>>> Initial tests indicate that NOD might be better.  What is your experience?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Have you used ESET NOD32?  How is it as a central management point for
>>> antivirus on the workstations?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks for any help you can provide.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/>  ~

<<image001.jpg>>

<<image002.jpg>>

Reply via email to