MUST-Read AntiVirus pgm-comparison

[TransformX]

Unless it was in 'self defence'...

[GNEP]

To be honest I've taken pretty much the same approach as Dogbert. Never had a virus at home. At work it's a different matter of course but then I don't have any control over the environment.

If I actually depended on my computer being available 100% of the time, then I would probably investigate AV progs and use one of them. But for my uses, it's not worth the hassle.

[drslump]

I'm sure that people like you, which know how to operate a computer at a sysadmin level, don't really need av software. However there are millions of computer users with powerful machines and broadband connections who haven't got a clue about how to protect their computers. The worst is that the companies who sell them the computers preffer to offer photo-editing or office software packages with the computer, rather than firewalls and proper antivirus software

[The PIT]

Hassle what Hassle doesn't cause me any problems at home.

[Johnny Ray]

I use to be able to make the same claim....7 years, no virus on my home PC. I'd like to think I practice "safe" computing - hardware firewall, open no executeables, etc. About 6 months ago I got hit hard. I still have no idea how I got infected. A situation I fully intend to avoid in the future.

John

[rugger]

Originally posted by Gurm
This test is confused and stupid.

I consistently see tests like this from supposedly reputable places that are just plain WRONG.

(Mind you, this doesn't even BEGIN to address the fact that these reviews and tests don't factor in the stability or speed - or lack thereof - of these programs. McAfee would never get ANY recommendations if they admitted that it erased 1 out of 10 systems' c:\windows\system32 directory!)

AVG catches virtually EVERYTHING. Kaspersky is way behind, and F-Secure - while good - is slow and ugly. Right now Norton is probably close to the top, but has failed repeatedly to catch viruses due to their "not every day" update policies.

- Gurm

I would have to agree about AVG. Its simply the best virus scanner I have seen to date. Its lightweight, fast, and does catch basicly everything. It's updates are ussually small and hassle free, though sometimes a big update goes through. AVG isn't perfect, but it is damned close.

Norton is an ugly, slow, inefficent and annoying virus scanner.

[Kurt]

double post

[Kurt]

Originally posted by Johnny Ray
I use to be able to make the same claim....7 years, no virus on my home PC. I'd like to think I practice "safe" computing - hardware firewall, open no executeables, etc. About 6 months ago I got hit hard. I still have no idea how I got infected. A situation I fully intend to avoid in the future.

John

A bit like ppl not installing an armored door. Then they get everything they cherish either stolen or broken and spend big bucks on such a door. But the damage is done...

Without being as dramatic, antivirus software is like an armored door, only it costs much less.

You only have to factor in the _value_ of your data with respect to the "hassle" of installing an AV prog.

[Admiral]

Originally posted by rugger
I would have to agree about AVG. Its simply the best virus scanner I have seen to date. Its lightweight, fast, and does catch basicly everything. It's updates are ussually small and hassle free, though sometimes a big update goes through. AVG isn't perfect, but it is damned close.

Norton is an ugly, slow, inefficent and annoying virus scanner.

So, umm... what would be the difference between AVG 7.0 and AVG Free ?

[TransformX]

You can't convince me about it.
Since I had more HDD crashes than viruses during the years, I backup essential stuff on CDs. I never heard of a virus capable of matching the destruction level of a HDD going kaput.

On the other hand, whether it's a virus or HW failure, I have my backup on CDs. Do you...?

[rugger]

I have seen AVG 7.0, but I haven't used it a lot.

It does seem to be as good as AVG free, but with a few more features.

[Gurm]

Originally posted by Admiral
So, umm... what would be the difference between AVG 7.0 and AVG Free ?

Not a heck of a lot.

- Gurm

[Belwarrior]

Originally posted by rugger
I have seen AVG 7.0, but I haven't used it a lot.

It does seem to be as good as AVG free, but with a few more features.

hehehe anyways i use AVG at home with zonealarm and some safe practice in the use of computers. At work we have to use trendmicro's officescan. An incident i would like to share is that a pc was infected with a virus and officescan reported it but it was unable to clean it and you could see the virus multiplying.. i got fed up and installed AVG and AVG while it also could not clean it, it did prevent the virus from being run or activated and was useful in that it managed to get the name of the virus involved and i got the tools needed to remove it and of course i regretfully had to uninstall AVG.

but my point is let AVG be as low as possible or not even listed on every antivirus rankings done anywhere as long as it does its job well. The less crackers/virus-coders know about AVG the more effective it will be.

[The PIT]

Originally posted by TransformX
On the other hand, whether it's a virus or HW failure, I have my backup on CDs. Do you...?

Not on CD to much of it. Hard drive in caddy does very nicely. But then it pointless having a backup thats infected and since you've got no virus checker you wouldn't know that would you.

I've heard of a virus and seen it wipe a hard drive completley. Caught quite a few students and one prof. Another varient wiped out both the hard drive and the bios although I never saw that one.

[Umfriend]

I find it hard to admit, but I am with TX on this one. I do not have any protection, I don't even have a firewall or anything. The last time I got a virus was from hacked games on my amiga (OK, it was my brothers'..... ), which was like uhm, 13 years ago?

Granted, I did run AVG recently to check how it worked (so I could install it for my father in law). No viruses found.