cubsfan6506
Got u
Does it work as good as not free antivirus?
Free Antivirus
- Thread starter cubsfan6506
- Start date
Seriously, do some research before you slam programs. Symantec corporate is one of the best anti-viruses available, by almost any measure, resource usage, reliability, customer support, scanning rate, etc.
I've had numerous issues with AVG on numerous machines. I'd recommend Avast as a free client, it's quality software.
taper
Meet Tux
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2002
- Messages
- 1,463
I'll admit I hadn't looked at Norton 2008, which seems to be a large improvement, but don't try to argue that earlier versions are worth the money for the typical home user. Corporate AV is a whole different thing that I assume is of no interest to the OP.
cubsfan6506
Got u
to late already paid 120 dollars for mcafee for tw years.
Ew. McAfee is a serious contender for the worst AV on the market, IMO.
I used Avast! for couple of years and was rather pleased. I knew it was a bit heavy on the resources but I just didn't know how heavy until I read about the test made by a Finnish magazine few months ago. They ran a benchmark programs under several antivirus programs and Avast! was the biggest resource hog of them all.
At worst Avast! reduced the scores by 14%! After reading about that I immediately changed to AVG which fared best on that test with only about 1% drop in performance. That's a huge difference considering there's no practical difference in their levels of protection.
If I remember correctly both Norton and F-Secure scored a loss of about 3.5% (looks like newer versions aren't nearly as bad as the old ones but I'm still staying with free progs). So one more recommendation for AVG from here
Genocidicbunny
Bug squasher
When I rarely use Anti-virus, I use both AVG and avast!, but those are merely for scans. I almost never have an antivirus installed, so their resource usage doesnt affect me much, and if the case is similar for you I'd go with avast! as it found more gunk on my pc ( 10 pieces of malware for avast vs 6 for AVG)
duckmanbro
Warlord
Heh, I've always seen AV to be useless, but I always seem to have some type of software (paid software) on my machines.
On my current laptop, I have McAfee AV, only as it was pre-installed with all the other crap that Dell so badly wants to bloat my machine with. Honestly, is it worth getting rid of? And what happens if I do get something on my laptop that is malicious? (And no, I don't go to those type of sites either).
On my current laptop, I have McAfee AV, only as it was pre-installed with all the other crap that Dell so badly wants to bloat my machine with. Honestly, is it worth getting rid of? And what happens if I do get something on my laptop that is malicious? (And no, I don't go to those type of sites either).
Strider
In Retrospect
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2002
- Messages
- 8,984
I used Avast! for couple of years and was rather pleased. I knew it was a bit heavy on the resources but I just didn't know how heavy until I read about the test made by a Finnish magazine few months ago. They ran a benchmark programs under several antivirus programs and Avast! was the biggest resource hog of them all.
At worst Avast! reduced the scores by 14%! After reading about that I immediately changed to AVG which fared best on that test with only about 1% drop in performance. That's a huge difference considering there's no practical difference in their levels of protection.
If I remember correctly both Norton and F-Secure scored a loss of about 3.5% (looks like newer versions aren't nearly as bad as the old ones but I'm still staying with free progs). So one more recommendation for AVG from here
I'm on a linux machine so I don't use the resource hog GUI version. Mine is just a plain command line interface.
It's not about the number of hits they get, it's about number of actual threats that get pass them. On that account both are very equal (IIRC on tests they both caught over 96% of viruses thrown at them). On my experience Avast! gives more false alerts though.
And to Strider, I really doubt it's the GUI that's eating all those resources - it's not that fancy after all
Strider
In Retrospect
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2002
- Messages
- 8,984
And to Strider, I really doubt it's the GUI that's eating all those resources - it's not that fancy after all
Are you kidding me? The AVG GUI would look at home in a windows 95 machine
. The Avast GUI is extremely fancy looking though.Are you kidding me? The AVG GUI would look at home in a windows 95 machine
Heh, I guess it's a matter of taste. Whether it's fancy or not I don't think it's heavy enough to be the main reason for Avast!'s sluggishness (especially as the GUI is closed for majority of time anyway).
Surely the one he was slamming was Norton, not any of the other free clients like Avast...
Yes, and I'd rank both Norton corporate and Avast very highly.
This was about 2 years ago, but I had a pretty serious virus that infected half my machine and made my PC temporarily inoperable due to constant random shutdowns. (It even gave me a nice little 1 minute countdown before hand, how nice of it). Anyway, Norton crashed during the virus scanning and removal process and couldn't fix the problem, so I had to run Trend's online scan and pray my PC wouldn't randomly shutdown while it was running. Trend found the virus and instructed me how to remove it manually which was a pain in the ass. That experience made me reconsider ever paying for virus protection again.
I use AVGfree today and haven't had any problems, but would consider switching to Avast as I have heard it is better. Why pay for virus protection and all the subsequent subscriptions when there are free alternatives that are just as good (and in some cases better)?
I use AVGfree today and haven't had any problems, but would consider switching to Avast as I have heard it is better. Why pay for virus protection and all the subsequent subscriptions when there are free alternatives that are just as good (and in some cases better)?
Mise
isle of lucy
I use a Mac.
j/k
j/k
Similar threads
