Looking for better AV software

Discussion in 'Computer Security' started by Ed, Sep 15, 2007.

  1. Ed

    Ed Guest

    I abandoned the more popular commercial offerings a few years ago
    because they tended to
    take over my machine, making it useless for long periods just when I
    wanted to use it. I have
    been using Panda since. Recently I have been disappointed with it due
    to spontaneous reboots
    that Microsoft says are caused by my AV software. Panda did not
    respond at all to my
    complaint about this. Another irritation is that the automatic update
    seems to mysteriously "break" a few
    weeks before it's time to renew the license.

    This brings me to the question, what's better than Panda, Norton &
    McAfee?

    TIA

    Ed
    Ed, Sep 15, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Ed wrote:
    > I abandoned the more popular commercial offerings a few years ago
    > because they tended to
    > take over my machine, making it useless for long periods just when I
    > wanted to use it. I have
    > been using Panda since. Recently I have been disappointed with it due
    > to spontaneous reboots
    > that Microsoft says are caused by my AV software. Panda did not
    > respond at all to my
    > complaint about this. Another irritation is that the automatic update
    > seems to mysteriously "break" a few
    > weeks before it's time to renew the license.
    >
    > This brings me to the question, what's better than Panda, Norton &
    > McAfee?
    >
    > TIA
    >
    > Ed
    >
    >
    >


    The best security is to recognize that no software is better than paying
    attention to what you click on.

    That said, AVG is quick, free, and isn't a resource hog. The number of
    opinions on which AV is best is the number of anti-virus programs ^
    infinity, so your best bet is to evaluate several, and make sure you
    know security best practices.

    --
    http://weblog.mkronline.com/
    Michael Robinson, Sep 15, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Ed

    Ed Guest

    Thanks, Michael.

    I have seen others here recommend AVG. I'll take a look.

    I don't mind paying for good software, but get irritated with it when
    it brings my machine to it's knees.

    I agree about not clicking on things... I'm even a little worried
    about clicking on your link :)

    Ed

    "Michael Robinson" <> wrote in message
    news:47e75$46ebf4fc$471d0bf2$...
    >
    > The best security is to recognize that no software is better than
    > paying attention to what you click on.
    >
    > That said, AVG is quick, free, and isn't a resource hog. The number
    > of opinions on which AV is best is the number of anti-virus programs
    > ^ infinity, so your best bet is to evaluate several, and make sure
    > you know security best practices.
    >
    > --
    > http://weblog.mkronline.com/
    >
    Ed, Sep 15, 2007
    #3
  4. Ed

    nemo_outis Guest

    "Ed" <jag_manR__EM*> wrote in news:5oSGi.9484$924.1270
    @newssvr23.news.prodigy.net:

    > This brings me to the question, what's better than Panda, Norton &
    > McAfee?


    There are a number of effective AV programs which are quite lightweight.
    Of these NOD32 is highly regarded.

    In the heavyweight category are such as Kaspersky and Bitdefender (which
    uses two engines, one of which is Kaspersky's).

    Regards,

    PS Norton is a pig which will bring even a powerful system to its knees,
    and besides being bloatware it puts down roots which can be very difficult
    to remove. (Not for nothing has Symantec been forced to provide a "deep
    removal" tool.)
    nemo_outis, Sep 15, 2007
    #4
  5. Ed wrote:
    > Thanks, Michael.
    >
    > I have seen others here recommend AVG. I'll take a look.
    >
    > I don't mind paying for good software, but get irritated with it when
    > it brings my machine to it's knees.
    >
    > I agree about not clicking on things... I'm even a little worried
    > about clicking on your link :)
    >
    > Ed
    >
    > "Michael Robinson" <> wrote in message
    > news:47e75$46ebf4fc$471d0bf2$...

    <snip>
    >>

    >
    >
    >


    The link is safe - I keep WP updated religiously, and most of the
    potentially hackable scripts (in wp-admin) are locked down, so the risk
    of a compromise is low. :p

    If you're using Firefox (highly recommended, if only because of
    noscript) you can install noscript and negate the vast majority of
    potential website based attacks, though you might still need to worry
    about image and markup rendering-based exploits (rare).

    As for paying for software, AVG is only free in the sense that you can
    use the free version as a regular usser. It's commercial, but they (and
    most "free" AVs) get their money from volume licenses. You're
    essentially participating in wide-scale testing so Grisoft can tell
    volume buyers "Look how popular it is!". I think trading a statistic for
    a good AV is worth it. :)

    --
    http://weblog.mkronline.com/
    Michael Robinson, Sep 15, 2007
    #5
  6. Ed

    VanguardLH Guest

    "Ed" <jag_manR__EM*> wrote in message
    news:5oSGi.9484$...
    >I abandoned the more popular commercial offerings a few years ago
    >because they tended to
    > take over my machine, making it useless for long periods just when I
    > wanted to use it. I have
    > been using Panda since. Recently I have been disappointed with it
    > due to spontaneous reboots
    > that Microsoft says are caused by my AV software. Panda did not
    > respond at all to my
    > complaint about this. Another irritation is that the automatic
    > update seems to mysteriously "break" a few
    > weeks before it's time to renew the license.
    >
    > This brings me to the question, what's better than Panda, Norton &
    > McAfee?



    I use AVG although it is the free version (the paid version includes
    more coverage, like for script blocking). It incurs little impact to
    my host (versus Avast! which had a significant impact). Antivir has
    good coverage but be prepared for nag screens on updates in the free
    version prompting you to buy their product and which interfere with
    fullscreen apps. I don't recall the impact on responsiveness to my
    host when using Antivir because I won't tolerate nagware (you can use
    IPS products, like System Safety Monitor, to keep their avnotify.exe
    program from loading but I shouldn't have to load more software to
    keep the nagware out of my face). However, if (more like when) I buy
    an AV product then Avira's AntiVir or Eset's NOD32 are likely
    candidates - but I'd first test it within a VM (in VMWare Server which
    is free) to guage its impact on responsiveness (for example, see what
    happens when you copy a couple thousand files with the AV configured
    to scan all files, not just executables - which is a stupid setup
    since any file regardless of filetype/extension can be executed if
    loaded into memory and has a header saying it is executable).

    McAfee will incur some impact to your host but how much depends on how
    much of their bloatware you install. My ISP provides a free copy to
    the McAfee suite. Their firewall is not very good (easy to terminate,
    bad or no logs, no HIPS to verify the parent that called the child
    that is making the connection is allowed, etc.). Their AV product all
    by itself isn't bad but unfortunately their coverage has been dropping
    over the last several months.

    http://www.av-comparatives.org/

    Remember that these are tested using the full versions, not the free
    versions (which often lack several features, like script blocking,
    PUPs whitelisting, etc.). Panda has always rated so bad for on-demand
    scanning coverage that, as I recall, it has never made it into their
    top-most products table.

    http://www.virusbtn.com/vb100/archive/results?display=vendors
    (you need to register to see their results)
    Use this VB100 award list to check on their *history* of performance,
    not on their coverage.

    Some examples of VB100 results:
    Alwil Avast!: 24 Success / 19 Failure (44% failed)
    Avira Antivir: 10 Success / 1 Failure ( 9% failed)
    Eset NOD32: 45 Success / 3 Failure ( 6% failed)
    Grisoft AVG: 18 Success / 22 Failure (55% failed)
    Kaspersky: 39 Success / 14 Failure (26% failed)
    McAfee: 32 Success / 19 Failure (37% failed)
    Microsoft OneCare: 2 Success / 1 Failure (50% failed)
    GeCAD RAV (*note1): 6 Success / 19 Failure (76% failed)
    Panda: 1 Success / 3 Failure (75% failed)
    Symantec CE (note2): 39 Success / 6 Failure (13% failed)

    *note1: GeCAD's RAV is what Microsoft bought to include as their AV
    product.
    *note2: Corporate Edition, not the Norton version.

    I use AVG (free) although it shows with a high failure rate. You have
    to look at the history to see how it fared in the latest tests (those
    most applicable to its current performance). The vast majority of its
    failed VB100 certification were before November 2002 (5 years ago).
    Do the same with other AV products in which you are interested since
    the overal failure rate may not reflect the current performance.
    Similarly, Avast's majority of failures were before Feb 2002. Go to
    http://www.virusbtn.com/vb100/archive/2007/08 (after logging in) and
    click on a vendor to see their history.
    VanguardLH, Sep 15, 2007
    #6
  7. Michael Robinson wrote:
    > Ed wrote:
    >> Thanks, Michael.
    >>
    >> I have seen others here recommend AVG. I'll take a look.
    >>
    >> I don't mind paying for good software, but get irritated with it when
    >> it brings my machine to it's knees.
    >>
    >> I agree about not clicking on things... I'm even a little worried
    >> about clicking on your link :)
    >>
    >> Ed
    >>
    >> "Michael Robinson" <> wrote in message
    >> news:47e75$46ebf4fc$471d0bf2$...

    > <snip>
    >>>

    >>
    >>
    >>

    >
    > The link is safe - I keep WP updated religiously, and most of the
    > potentially hackable scripts (in wp-admin) are locked down, so the risk
    > of a compromise is low. :p
    >
    > If you're using Firefox (highly recommended, if only because of
    > noscript) you can install noscript and negate the vast majority of
    > potential website based attacks, though you might still need to worry
    > about image and markup rendering-based exploits (rare).
    >
    > As for paying for software, AVG is only free in the sense that you can
    > use the free version as a regular usser. It's commercial, but they (and
    > most "free" AVs) get their money from volume licenses. You're
    > essentially participating in wide-scale testing so Grisoft can tell
    > volume buyers "Look how popular it is!". I think trading a statistic for
    > a good AV is worth it. :)
    >

    Well what you say may be true, but I have the paid version of AVG and think it
    is far better than either Norton or McAfee. Norton really took over my machine
    and I had to pay to have the last vestiges of it removed when I got rid of it.
    McAfee's version of update was to send you to its home page and dump you there.

    AVG (because I asked it to) sends a message every time there is an update.
    Sometimes there will be more than one a day. I pause, right click my icon, hit
    update and it goes up and gets it, installs it, and lets me know. All of this
    takes about 30 seconds and I'm back at work. It checks incoming and outgoing
    mail, etc. etc. See the bottom of this message.

    Finally, when I have had the occasional problem (once a scan picked up a NOAA
    navigation chart) and told them, they had a complete plan for a one-step
    download of your important config and logs and you add the file they fingered
    and they came right back and gave a full report. Real service.

    'nuff said
    Gualtier Malde, Sep 15, 2007
    #7
  8. Give NOD32 a try.


    "Ed" <jag_manR__EM*> wrote in message
    news:5oSGi.9484$...
    > I abandoned the more popular commercial offerings a few years ago because
    > they tended to
    > take over my machine, making it useless for long periods just when I
    > wanted to use it. I have
    > been using Panda since. Recently I have been disappointed with it due to
    > spontaneous reboots
    > that Microsoft says are caused by my AV software. Panda did not respond at
    > all to my
    > complaint about this. Another irritation is that the automatic update
    > seems to mysteriously "break" a few
    > weeks before it's time to renew the license.
    >
    > This brings me to the question, what's better than Panda, Norton & McAfee?
    >
    > TIA
    >
    > Ed
    >
    >
    Comcast Newsgroups, Sep 15, 2007
    #8
  9. Ed

    Jim Watt Guest

    On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 07:56:39 -0700, "Ed"
    <jag_manR__EM*> wrote:

    >This brings me to the question, what's better than Panda, Norton &
    >McAfee?


    My personal taste is AVG which takes up fewer resources
    and seems to do the job.

    Saw a machine last week with the latest Avast AV on it,
    it also had a virus. Nod runs very slowly and Norton
    is a nightmare best removed from new machines.
    --
    Jim Watt
    http://www.gibnet.com
    Jim Watt, Sep 16, 2007
    #9
  10. Ed

    Joan Archer Guest

    If you don't mind paying NOD32 is a very good AV it has a small footprint
    and doesn't try to take over your machine and it updates it's def files
    without any problems or without you having to stop what you are doing.
    I don't think you'd be sorry if you gave it a try.
    Joan


    Ed wrote:
    >I abandoned the more popular commercial offerings a few years ago
    > because they tended to
    > take over my machine, making it useless for long periods just when I
    > wanted to use it. I have
    > been using Panda since. Recently I have been disappointed with it due
    > to spontaneous reboots
    > that Microsoft says are caused by my AV software. Panda did not
    > respond at all to my
    > complaint about this. Another irritation is that the automatic update
    > seems to mysteriously "break" a few
    > weeks before it's time to renew the license.
    >
    > This brings me to the question, what's better than Panda, Norton &
    > McAfee?
    >
    > TIA
    >
    > Ed




    --
    Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
    Joan Archer, Sep 16, 2007
    #10
  11. Ed

    Jim Watt Guest

    On Sun, 16 Sep 2007 12:43:38 +0100, "Joan Archer"
    <> wrote:

    >If you don't mind paying NOD32 is a very good AV it has a small footprint
    >and doesn't try to take over your machine and it updates it's def files
    >without any problems or without you having to stop what you are doing.
    >I don't think you'd be sorry if you gave it a try.


    I tried it and it was very s l o w.
    --
    Jim Watt
    http://www.gibnet.com
    Jim Watt, Sep 16, 2007
    #11
  12. Ed

    Gary Guest

    On 16-Sep-2007, Jim Watt <_way> wrote:

    > I tried it and it was very s l o w.
    > --
    > Jim Watt
    > http://www.gibnet.com


    There must of been something wrong because I have installed it on many
    computers and has never slowed any computer I have put it on. NOD32 runs as
    if there is no AV installed. None of those computers have not been infected
    yet.
    Gary, Sep 17, 2007
    #12
  13. Ed

    Joan Archer Guest

    In what way was it slow, during a scan, installing, loading ?

    I have never had problems with it and know a lot of knowledgeable people
    who would recommend it.
    Joan

    Jim Watt wrote:
    > On Sun, 16 Sep 2007 12:43:38 +0100, "Joan Archer"
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >>If you don't mind paying NOD32 is a very good AV it has a small
    >>footprint and doesn't try to take over your machine and it updates
    >>it's def files without any problems or without you having to stop
    >>what you are doing.
    >>I don't think you'd be sorry if you gave it a try.

    >
    > I tried it and it was very s l o w.




    --
    Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
    Joan Archer, Sep 17, 2007
    #13
  14. On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 10:02:25 GMT, "Gary" <> wrote:

    >None of those computers have not been infected yet.


    Sounds a little bad to me ;-)
    Straight Talk, Sep 17, 2007
    #14
  15. Jim Watt wrote:

    Nod runs very slowly and Norton
    > is a nightmare best removed from new machines.


    And lots of luck doing that!

    > Jim Watt
    > http://www.gibnet.com
    Gualtier Malde, Sep 18, 2007
    #15
  16. Ed

    Jim Watt Guest

    On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 15:04:46 +0100, "Joan Archer"
    <> wrote:

    >In what way was it slow, during a scan, installing, loading ?


    The system scan was very slow

    >I have never had problems with it and know a lot of knowledgeable people
    >who would recommend it.


    I can only speak from personal experience and trying the
    product and am not impressed by it or arguments about
    unverifiable claims.

    However, there are plenty of people who post to this
    group who have practical experience of such things which
    is why we are discussing the merits of various AV products.

    --
    Jim Watt
    http://www.gibnet.com
    Jim Watt, Sep 18, 2007
    #16
  17. Ed

    Jim Watt Guest

    On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 17:45:56 -0700, Gualtier Malde
    <> wrote:

    >Jim Watt wrote:
    >
    >Nod runs very slowly and Norton
    >> is a nightmare best removed from new machines.

    >
    >And lots of luck doing that!


    I know what you mean, if the uninstall goes wrong,
    its a hour or so with regedit.

    However the quicker its uninstalled the less chance
    it will screw up or dig into the system.
    --
    Jim Watt
    http://www.gibnet.com
    Jim Watt, Sep 18, 2007
    #17
  18. Ed

    Joan Archer Guest

    True, which is why you will always get different opinions as each person
    goes by personal experience and the way things run on their machines,
    which are never the same as someone else's. <g>
    Joan


    Jim Watt wrote:
    >
    > However, there are plenty of people who post to this
    > group who have practical experience of such things which
    > is why we are discussing the merits of various AV products.




    --
    Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
    Joan Archer, Sep 18, 2007
    #18
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. lbbss
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    654
    bigredfred
    Oct 28, 2005
  2. Tony Carlisle

    Why doesn't the better camera have a better dpi?

    Tony Carlisle, Oct 2, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    439
    Mark Herring
    Oct 4, 2003
  3. thingy

    The SCO case gets better and better....

    thingy, Dec 10, 2006, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    322
  4. dh@.
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    460
    PTravel
    Aug 28, 2008
  5. Giuen
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    836
    Giuen
    Sep 12, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page