Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ncar!midway!ellis.uchicago.edu!dwal
From: dwal@ellis.uchicago.edu (David Walton)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.misc
Subject: Re: Disinfectant 2.0 vs SAM vs ?
Message-ID: <1990Aug10.012231.18489@midway.uchicago.edu>
Date: 10 Aug 90 01:22:31 GMT
References: <53318215MES@MSU> <3624@nisca.ircc.ohio-state.edu>
Sender: news@midway.uchicago.edu (News Administrator)
Organization: U. Chicago Computing Organizations, Academic and Public Comp.
Lines: 23

In article <3624@nisca.ircc.ohio-state.edu> gaynor@hpuxa.ircc.ohio-state.edu (Jim Gaynor) writes:
>In article <53318215MES@MSU> 18215MES@MSU.BITNET writes:
>
>	I always recommended Disinfectant, Gatekeeper, and Gatekeeper Aid
>to the users I spoke to, and the on-disk documentation I wrote said the
>same thing.  Especially when one has net access.  Why?  A number or reasons.

The reasons you cited (lack of cost, lack of licensing hassles,
effectiveness, and fast updates) are the same reasons I vastly prefer
GateKeeper, GateKeeper Aid, and Disinfectant.  SAM has the advantage
of scanning disks each time they're inserted, but I find
GateKeeper/GateKeeper Aid to be easier to use and easier to explain
than SAM; I also think the documentation is better (though SAM's
manual has some very good sections in it).  I've never used Virex,
so I can't say anything about it.  GateKeeper, GateKeeper Aid, and
Disinfectant have always kept my disks clean :-).

>| Jim Gaynor - The Ohio State Univ. - IRCC - Facilities Mgmt. - OCES  <whew!> 

--
David Walton            Internet: dwal@midway.uchicago.edu
University of Chicago   {  Any opinions found herein are mine, not  }
Computing Organizations {  those of my employers (or anybody else). }