(The following is a paid post.) I installed a new antivirus/antispyware tool today: VIPRE Antivirus Software from Sunbelt Software Inc. I’ve had compatibility issues with Symantec on Windows Vista at my office, so when I had the chance to review a new antivirus tool it seemed like a nice idea. Below is my step-by-step experience with the VIPRE 15-day free trial.

After installing VIPRE, I was prompted to restart my machine. After rebooting, I ran my first scan (Active Protection was not yet turned on). A relatively quick 4 minutes 19 seconds  later and I was alerted to a handful of items that VIPRE recommended I either quarantine or remove. So far things are looking good! The scan is much faster than AdAware, though I can’t tell if looking into my registries or not (I have AdAware set to deep scan my computer).

Selecting all of the items found by VIPRE, I hit “Clean”. I am immediately met by a pop-up saying the software found “a risk while performing a quick scan. A deep scan is recommended for any more traces of this risk.” Aha – an answer to my above question. I hit “Yes” and VIPRE goes back to work.

75 minutes later. . . my deep scan is done. No other risks have been found. This scan took way longer than I had anticipated, though it’s about as time consuming as a deep AdAware scan. Between the two tools, I don’t know if I could say that one does a better job than the other. In any case, I do like the VIPRE interface.

My next task is to try the “Active Protection” feature, which Sunbelt claims is “high-performance security that doesn’t slow your computer down like older, traditional antivirus programs.” Running my computer for a few hours with this turned on didn’t seem to slow it down any, though I haven’t really tried to do anything out of the ordinary.

As for other cool features, I discovered a “Secure File Eraser” feature which claims to completely eliminate all traces of a file deleted from your computer (not recoverable with special data-recovery utilities). I enabled this feature, and began deleting some test files. As far as I can tell this feature works – then again, I’m certainly not a forensic computer scientist so don’t take my word as gospel on this. The files don’t appear in my recycling bin. . . so I’ll just consider them removed permanently.

Overall, I’d give this product a B+.

As for cost, I’d have to say that $29.95 for a single computer (there are also other licensing options) for one year sounds like a fine deal. Other antivirus programs can be several times that cost, and VIPRE seems to do a fine job. Consider this product “recommended”.

(The following is a paid post.) PayPerPost v4.0 is advertising itself as a “new and improved” version of the PayPerPost platform. As someone who gets paid to blog from time-to-time, I’m going to offer my opinion on their new look. Their old site can be found here.

For those of you unfamiliar with PayPerPost, it’s  a company that pays bloggers (like me!) to talk about things relevant to our target audience. PayPerPost is one of a handful of companies owned and/or operated by Izea, who focus on social marketing in a variety of forms. The idea behind PayPerPost is that they connect advertisers directly with bloggers who review and discuss the advertiser’s products, website or services.

At first glance, it’s obvious that PayPerPost changed the graphic design of their portal. It looks much nicer than before, and I appreciate how much crap was taken off the site. In the previous version, the PayPerPost interface was littered with icons and links; it had so many things to look at that I often had a hard time finding open opportunities that my blog was even qualified for.

In the new version, the interface is much cleaner. However in version 3, I could browse a list of open opportunities; in this version, there’s nothing currently listed and no explanation as to why. After reading around on the FAQs, apparently PayPerPost has changed how this all works – advertisers now control who they invite to blog about them. I guess that’s fair and probably a smart idea, but that should be mentioned when there’s nothing in my list of opportunities.

Speaking of FAQs. . . they have a list of about 50 in no particular order. They really ought to break that up into sections because it’s hard to read.

I’ve also noticed that PayPerPost will now only release my money when I’ve accumulated $50 or more. In the previous version, funds in any amount were released thirty days after the post was written.

One bit of web development nitpicking: the Terms of Service page was never checked by a human. The background color is so dark that no one can read the terms. . . perhaps it’s a clever way of discouraging you from reading them, but my money says that their developers were just lazy and forgot to change the CSS.

I think overall the previous site needed a facelift, and the one it has received is fine indeed. I’ll be curious to see how the new system affects me, since I now have to wait for advertisers to contact me. I’d love to hear what anyone else has to say about this!

(The following is a paid post) — Looking for an alternative to Google, Yahoo, and MSN? The Find.com Search Engine might interest you.

I’ll be honest… the search results don’t really compare to any of the major search engines. Doing a search for local web design results gave me nothing helpful, though searching for something more generic seemed to work just fine. I imagine that this is simply because the search engine is new… so I’ll give Find.com the benefit of the doubt.

That being said, the interface is actually pretty nice! Here are some things that I like:

• Find.com features an open layout, which is easy on the eyes.
• I like the smooth graphics, as well as the color scheme
• The ability to search by typing www.find.com/your_keyword is also nice

Some things I don’t like:

• Find.com is using paid ads from Google Adsense in their search results. I know they’re trying to make money, but why wouldn’t I just search Google for these ads?
• The search results don’t tell you how many total results are returned. Also missing is the total number of pages of results.
• Searching is a bit slow, particularly when compared to Yahoo or Google.
• I don’t really understand their logo (a tree?)… but it looks nice with the color scheme.

Overall, I’d give the site an A for design, but a C for functionality. Fixing the speed and the number of results would easily bring that score up to a B. I’ll check back in a few months to see how Find.com improves.

(The following is a paid review.) I found a cool resource on the web today that may be useful for a lot of people.

file extension 3gp is a website that lists a number of commonly searched file extensions with explanations about the file type, as well as basic troubleshooting information for Windows users.

I think the site is a great idea.In particular, the explanations of the file types are actually pretty good and not generic. For example, I clicked on the “.jar” extension, and I was happy to see an easy-to-understand explanation of the file type and how it is commonly used.

I wasn’t really impressed with the troubleshooting portion of this particular extension, mainly because it was a generic explanation which doesn’t really help a non-technical user fix the problem. A link to to “run a free scan” for errors takes you to a page to run an “.exe” file, which I honestly didn’t trust enough to try. (It is really unwise to run EXE files which don’t come from trusted sources. This site has Microsoft images next to their links, but I have no way of knowing their affiliation with Microsoft.)

All of that being said, I think the site needs a bit of work in a few places.

1. The site is missing some really obvious file extensions. I understand that they’re starting with the file types which receive the most search traffic, but not having something as obvious as “.html” is a bit confusing. Other file types like “.py” (Python), “.asp” or “.aspx” (Active Server Pages) are missing. As the site grows, I’m sure these will be added and I look forward to seeing them.
2. The user interface is a bit bland. They have a good logo, but the site’s navigation is sparse.
3. The site is definitely focused on Windows users, which might turn off Mac and Linux users.

Some advice from me:

• Get rid of the error scanning EXE files. Given the stated goal of your site, you should focus solely on providing information. If you’re going to offer a scanning application, brand it like AdAware (a downloadable application with a cool GUI).
• Add more file extensions.
• Work on your site navigation.

Overall, I think I’d give the site a “B”. I look forward to checking back on this site in a few weeks.