What is the argument for paying for an antivirus program?

...........................

 

Its all preference. I normally find free antiviruses such as Avast do their job very well. As long as you have common sense an anti virus really isnt needed most if not all the time.

Ive used avast, and currently norton(cause my laptop came with a 2 year subscription to it). And I havent really ever had to actually use them in like 10 years. They just stay in the background and make me feel safe.


I feel that people use paid antivirus just as a placebo to feel more safer .

 

If you're a business/ using a business computer you may not be able to use free products legally. That's the only reason I'd ever pay.

 

^This.

Also, look at anti-virus programs such as Mcaffe and Panda who are worse than MSE and Avast! yet they charge a fee for their services.

But look at anti-virus programs such as NOD that is considered top notch and superior to most (debatable, I know) and that would be one of the main reasons to pay.

However, for most users, a free anti-virus such as MSE is sufficient.

 

Not sure why you wouldn't be able to use free products legally, but you definitely wouldn't get enterprise-level vendor support. That's pretty much the only reason.

A lot of AV programs are scams, and a lot of people don't know how to use them. My aunt was having problems with her PC, so I took a look at it and found no less than four AV programs installed, some of them of dubious repute (StopSign was one that actually caused registry damage when I uninstalled it). Huge mess.

 

Lot's of free AV's are for personal/non-commercial (i.e. non-business) use only as per EULA, to which you have to agree.
F.i.
-MSE can be used in a small business if it's not on more than 10 workstations installed.
-Avast Free is for personal/non-commercial use only.
(Perhaps it's legal to use it a non-profit organization but I don't know the legal details exactly).

 

I think that Free AntiVirus systems have improved vastly over the years. Like Avira AntiVir and Microsoft Security Essentials are very good free options.

But I have been using NOD32 / and now Eset Smart Security (which is just like NOD32 + a Firewall) for 6 years and have never had a virus, and better yet, I never even felt that I have an Antivirus program on my notebook due to the face that Eset's products are very lightweight on the system, yet very very secure. Add to that, they have 0 false positives. When I install MSE or Avira I immediately start getting notifications about viruses on my computer, but upon rigorous checking, it turns out to be a false positive.

Its not a must, but an option, if you have some spare money. I always go for the 2 year licenses as they tend to be cheaper

I paid $83 USD for a 2 year license valid to be installed on 2 computers for my Eset Smart Security Suite . They charged me only 10 USD more to have an additional license for another computer in my house so I figured why not? lemme hook up my wife too

 

i like to use a product that does not live from the fact that there are viruses (because will they really fight them, or just make a show so you continue to use it?).

that's why i chose MSE. they don't care if there will at one point not be viruses anymore. it's a product that does not need to life "after the viruses", and thus will not care if at one point it would be useless. that trust can for survival reasons not be given by the other companies.

but no, i never payed (used avast before). as a company i would pay. if just to sue them when something goes wrong

 

So people can still have jobs. To reduce unemployment statistics.

 

As an enterprise you are often required to use pay products. On top of that pay products often include endpoint management, enterprise level customer service, and guarantees.

I would use MSE as an antivirus because Windows, as a closed source product, can only truly ever be properly managed by Microsoft.

However, I would avoid 3rd party security software entirely if I had the choice. I believe all security should be built into the operating system.

 

I'd say the main arguement is paid antivir programs detect malware better( not all of them),Norton NIS typically is tops in this,,free ones miss more malware. I did a post on top antivir,,Norton NIS 2011 is rated best overall.

Cheers
3Fees

 

That may be the argument but it's not true =p

 

People pay for antivirus so they can blame someone if they go wild on Internet and behave badly. Otherwise they would have to blame browser, Windows or themselves for choosing the "poor" free AV!


Joking of course. Not trying to insult anyone here

AV companies who charge customers must offer good service in case a customer cannot deal with the threat. That is why I would pay. If you can handle the threat than you are in a much better position since you don't have to pay anything.

So the price should be the difference in knowledge/information/ability to learn/lack of time etc... between an AV company and an average customer facing a threat. AV companies want the threat to rise, so the difference is bigger and more customers need help/service - thus more income for AV company. Now "the threat" is not necessarily an equally big threat for each user. Even real numbers (virus stats etc...) don't apply for every part of the world with local habits, languages, popular online services or whatever. But the ads and prices are the same for the whole world! I guess many people pay and really they don't need it.

 

Pay software tends to come with support.

In the case of Comodo that's all you pay for.

 

Yes. Comodo has a bit different logic (Melih being praised for that). It is also free for commercial and they offer insurance (money) in case of data loss if I am not mistaken. Perhaps they stopped that?

 

Yes, 500 dollar guarantee.

 

I paid for Norton 360 Premier because it's 25 GB of online storage that happens to come with a decent AV and firewall. I snagged a copy for $30, which I think is a fair price.

 

Do all pay security programs have a yearly fee?

 

There is no guarantee or compensation your OS will not get infected by malware.
Support is only for issue that the software can cost your OS.
That is why I won't pay for it.
When Anti-Virus nuke your OS there is no compensation either.
Only extend subscription i.e giving the AntiVirus more chances of nuking your OS again.

 

Here's the guarantee.

 

It is very gray the way they define it because:
1)Software Malware rarely destroy hardware so there is Zero hardware Repair Cost.
2)They will probably ask you to activate the Recovery Partition and they don't guarantee data either.
I will not accept their guarantee without reservations.
Restore to working condition doesn't mean you get your PC back to Original State with data intact and all.
Working condition means it WORKS thats it. I can easily do that at a drop of a hat just time consuming thats all.

 

Other than in a business environment where you're forced to use paid enterprise AV, I would never use that sort of software. I first used AVG Free/MBAM Free, but moved to MSE/MBAM Free about a year ago (or whenever MSE was released) and loving it. Lightweight, and I trust at least MBAM to catch malware on my computer (I use it to disinfect the family desktop all the time; haven't been attacked yet while using MSE). The reason I moved away from AVG Free was because some of the newer versions constantly bothered me to upgrade to the paid version, and during a FIRST Robotics meeting, it flagged a Hello World program (C++, compiled in Dev-C++) as a virus... That made me lose trust in them.

 

You know, I didn't think of that one, but it's probably the best one of all.

BTW, Norton update it's software nearly everyday. Try getting that kind of immediacy from a freeware.

 

NOD32 updates every few hours Try getting that from any Paid Antivirus, let alone the Free

A new virus can hit your PC anytime, doesn't require 24 hours. That's the beauty of NOD32, most secure, yet the lightest on the system you won't even feel you have any AV installed

 

Norton does the same thing as well.

 

In my personal opinion, people don't really need paid AV's.
Business maybe because they are forced to do so, but in terms of users, nah.
Either lock your OS properly so you don't have to use an AV at all, or use a good free one like Avast, MSE or Avira together with MBAM.

 

So you paid for an AV and now you're in the realm of cognitive dissonance.
Check Norton AV Pulse Updates, it can update several times an hour.
J/k, raptor88, NOD32 is a nice AV but it's hardly unique in it's update feature.

 

Agreed... and I just renewed for another year.

 

Norton's pulse updates are updated once every 15 minutes, or even more frequently as Baserk said.

 

MSE updates once or more per day... its free.

 

Even better. But I stated the most I could confirm at the time.

 

One reason consumers would consider Norton or others is pay support for when things go wrong.

 

Are you saying Comodo AV is completely worthless, or that the only thing cost money is support? Support is also free via their forums.

 

I'm saying Comodo's AV is free...

GeekBuddy is not free.

 

+1. I once read from another forum that the core engine of both the free and paid AV's is the same.

The only difference is on "paid" versions, a lot of the functions are done on an automatic and real-time manner.

 

The core engine in virtually every AV is likely difference but they all work in similar ways/ perform similar functions.

There's no reason that throwing 20 bucks at a piece of software will make you any more protected.