What is the best Anti-Virus software?

[Vette73]

So what anti-virus is the best and why?

Such as Avast, Norton, AVG, etc...

I got a virus and when I repaired it the registry was damaged so I reinstalled Windows. Well it copied itself over to my backup drive and came back even though I never D/L'd anything new after reinstall. So I formated both hard drives and reinstalled and am back up. But looking to see what works best.

 

[videogames101]

ESET Nod32,

Lightweight, extremely high detection rates, fastest file scanning available.

 

[nismotigerwvu]

Nod32 is great as mentioned already, and I'd just like to add how satisfied I've been with avast as well

 

[Brutus04]

Anything but Norton...

 

[Phynaz]

Originally posted by: Brutus04
Anything but Norton...

Most would disagree with you.

 

[compman25]

NIS 2009

 

[bendixG15]

Originally posted by: Phynaz

Originally posted by: Brutus04
Anything but Norton...

Most would disagree with you.

Most would disagree with you.

 

[videogames101]

Originally posted by: bendixG15

Originally posted by: Phynaz

Originally posted by: Brutus04
Anything but Norton...

Most would disagree with you.

Most would disagree with you.

Actually, Norton 2009 is 10000x times better than previous releases, most agree that it's now a decent product.

(Nod32 is still better though.)

 

[Sam25]

Nod32 :thumbsup:

 

[Vette73]

Originally posted by: nismotigerwvu
Nod32 is great as mentioned already, and I'd just like to add how satisfied I've been with avast as well

I am asking as avast has failed. I did a scan of a small folder and it said was clean. I put it back on my drive and now I get virus alerats.
i did install nod32 and it found the orignal virus in that folder and on the DVD I copied it from.

So Avast has failed and when avast tries to remove the virus it damages my registry.

 

[corkyg]

And there is a new kid on the block from Sunbelt Software - full page ad in Microsoft TechNet for May.

Vipre

 

[Beanie46]

Originally posted by: bendixG15

Originally posted by: Phynaz

Originally posted by: Brutus04
Anything but Norton...

Most would disagree with you.

Most would disagree with you.

And you'd be quite wrong, unless AV-Comparatives is a hack AV testing site.............


In AV-Comparatives latest testing, Feb. 2009, Norton finished in the top rank, Advanced+, along with ESET, Kaspersky, and McAfee.



From AV-Comparatives' Feb. 2009 test.......what was tested:

Avast! Professional Edition 4.8.1335

AVG Anti-Virus 8.0.234

AVIRA AntiVir Premium 8.2.0.374

BitDefender Anti-Virus 12.0.11.4

Command Anti-Malware 5.0.8

eScan Anti-Virus 10.0.946.341

ESET NOD32 Antivirus 3.0.684.0

F-Secure Anti-Virus 9.00.149

G DATA AntiVirus 19.1.0.0

Kaspersky Anti-Virus 8.0.0.506a

Kingsoft AntiVirus 2008.11.6.63

McAfee VirusScan Plus 13.3.117

Microsoft Live OneCare 2.5.2900.20

Norman Antivirus & Anti-Spyware 7.10.02

Sophos Anti-Virus 7.6.4

Symantec Norton Anti-Virus 16.2.0.7

Trustport Antivirus 2.8.0.3011



How the testing turned out:


* Advanced+: Symantec, ESET, Kaspersky, McAfee

* Advanced: GDATA, AVIRA, Avast, BitDefender, eScan, TrustPort, F-Secure

* Standard: AVG, Sophos, Microsoft

* Tested: Authentium, Norman, Kingsoft


And something to consider......AV Comparatives does downrate AV software on numbers of false positives the product produces. As they said,

......false alarms can sometimes cause as much trouble as actual infections. Please consider the false alarm rate when looking at the detection rates, as a product which is prone to cause false alarms achieves higher scores easier.

Take AVIRA......very, very good detection rate but was one of the worst at throwing false positives, which got it downrated to the second tier.


A link to AV-Comparatives Feb. 2009 test, rankings are on page 24.



And sorry about all that, but I just hate misinformation, stupid information, just plain wrong information.....esp. biased information.

Myself, I've used ESET NOD32---very good stuff, but have used Kaspersky for two years now and don't regret the decision one bit (got it cheap!)

 

[Cellulose]

I think the issue was that it was very bloated and resource hungry, the detection rates weren't really an issue (which is why it was popular among businesses). But as mentioned before its definately improved with 2009.

For example, McAfee has decent detection rates but is still considered mediocre by most.

 

[Beanie46]

I just really find the "bloated and uses too much resources" argument to be rather superfluous in today's environment, at least from where I am looking. I just looked at what Kaspersky is using while Vista Ult. 64 is running.....34MB. While that may seem to be a lot, given 4GB of RAM is under $25, it becomes a non-issue for the vast majority of users. Even under 2GB of RAM, 34MB of memory use is still a pittance. Norton isn't much, if any, worse in footprint.

And given that Firefox use is so prevalent around here, at the same time I've got 4 Firefox windows open, with 4 tabs in one, and 1 tab, 1 tab, and 3 tabs in the others......and FF is using over 300MB of RAM. Yet I hear little, if any, complaints about how much of a resource hog Firefox is. 10X the memory use vs. Kaspersky, or Norton, or most all the other AV software, yet some continue to complain about "resource hog footprint" of software using <40MB while we continue to use a browser that uses vastly more memory. Strange, that is.

 

[quikah]

Just don't download anything from suspicious sources (pretty much don't use P2P software) and don't use IE. The only time I have ever had AV on my computer in the past 10 years is when I worked for Trend Micro and was able to get a free copy of their AV. I tried using Kaspersky for a short while after I quit Trend and my license ran out, but found it caused many issues with WoW mods.

I put AVG on my wife's computer since she likes to do a lot of dumb unsafe things.

 

[lxskllr]

Originally posted by: Beanie46
I just really find the "bloated and uses too much resources" argument to be rather superfluous in today's environment, at least from where I am looking. I just looked at what Kaspersky is using while Vista Ult. 64 is running.....34MB. While that may seem to be a lot, given 4GB of RAM is under $25, it becomes a non-issue for the vast majority of users. Even under 2GB of RAM, 34MB of memory use is still a pittance. Norton isn't much, if any, worse in footprint.

And given that Firefox use is so prevalent around here, at the same time I've got 4 Firefox windows open, with 4 tabs in one, and 1 tab, 1 tab, and 3 tabs in the others......and FF is using over 300MB of RAM. Yet I hear little, if any, complaints about how much of a resource hog Firefox is. 10X the memory use vs. Kaspersky, or Norton, or most all the other AV software, yet some continue to complain about "resource hog footprint" of software using <40MB while we continue to use a browser that uses vastly more memory. Strange, that is.

I use the term "bloated" liberally. I don't care much about ram usage. Bloated to me is boxes that popup all of the time, and general nuisance behavior.

 

[pcslookout]

Originally posted by: Beanie46
I just really find the "bloated and uses too much resources" argument to be rather superfluous in today's environment, at least from where I am looking. I just looked at what Kaspersky is using while Vista Ult. 64 is running.....34MB. While that may seem to be a lot, given 4GB of RAM is under $25, it becomes a non-issue for the vast majority of users. Even under 2GB of RAM, 34MB of memory use is still a pittance. Norton isn't much, if any, worse in footprint.

And given that Firefox use is so prevalent around here, at the same time I've got 4 Firefox windows open, with 4 tabs in one, and 1 tab, 1 tab, and 3 tabs in the others......and FF is using over 300MB of RAM. Yet I hear little, if any, complaints about how much of a resource hog Firefox is. 10X the memory use vs. Kaspersky, or Norton, or most all the other AV software, yet some continue to complain about "resource hog footprint" of software using <40MB while we continue to use a browser that uses vastly more memory. Strange, that is.

Thank you for helping me solve a problem and a question on this forum that no one ever wanted to admit before!

 

[KoolDrew]

Originally posted by: compman25
NIS 2009

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: bendixG15

Originally posted by: Phynaz

Originally posted by: Brutus04
Anything but Norton...

Most would disagree with you.

Most would disagree with you.

The problem with Nortons is there are times when it trys to tell you there is a problem when in fact there is no problem!

 

[NeoV]

McAfee is garbage - their 'corporate' package isn't worth the price of the cardboard box containing the software.

Kaspersky gets my vote for all areas.

 

[Chiefcrowe]

Personally, i feel that an antivirus is a resource hog if it slows down my system noticably. As for firefox, even with a lot of things open I usually never notice slowdowns.

Originally posted by: Beanie46
I just really find the "bloated and uses too much resources" argument to be rather superfluous in today's environment, at least from where I am looking. I just looked at what Kaspersky is using while Vista Ult. 64 is running.....34MB. While that may seem to be a lot, given 4GB of RAM is under $25, it becomes a non-issue for the vast majority of users. Even under 2GB of RAM, 34MB of memory use is still a pittance. Norton isn't much, if any, worse in footprint.

And given that Firefox use is so prevalent around here, at the same time I've got 4 Firefox windows open, with 4 tabs in one, and 1 tab, 1 tab, and 3 tabs in the others......and FF is using over 300MB of RAM. Yet I hear little, if any, complaints about how much of a resource hog Firefox is. 10X the memory use vs. Kaspersky, or Norton, or most all the other AV software, yet some continue to complain about "resource hog footprint" of software using <40MB while we continue to use a browser that uses vastly more memory. Strange, that is.

 

[AlexWade]

I find that Norton does a good job of detecting viruses but a pitiful job detecting malware. Even with Norton 2009, I've seen computers loaded with scareware and spyware. The same with McAfee, except McAfee is a bloated and slow. McAfee had the brilliant idea of replacing the efficient Microsoft Security Center with their own inefficient one. Trend Micro is now garbage all around, although it is a little more lightweight. In the older days, Trend Micro was great. Not anymore.

Kaspersky would be my 2nd choice. But my first choice is NOD32 because it detects everything and it is lightweight.

 

[hennessy1]

Is the $349.95 difference in price between nod32 and avast 10user worth it?

 

[hennessy1]

Is the value of each software that great in difference?

 

[George P Burdell]

While I find it hard to trust an AV made by Microsoft, I've been hearing good things about MSE. Personally, I've been on Avira for the last few years. Very good detection rates, low memory and CPU footprint.