Free Anti-virus vs. Paid ones

I'm using ZA 6.5 Security Suite presently, but it rarely found anything. I highly doubt that i'm that lucky since I find ~10 spyware every week. I switch to one of the free ones (either Avast! or AVG), would they be better than my current one? Sorry if someone already asked this; I read through the first few pages of "The Best Anti-virus" thread and didn't find anything.

 

I wouldn't say that just since it is not finding anything it isn't working. I mean I also have about 8-10 hits from ad aware a week and my Avast rarely has said I have a virus. Your probably just conscious of what you try and download. As for Avast/AVG vs. Symantec/McAfee/etc. I don't think there is much of a difference in protection. I know alot of people that use Avast or AVG with no consequences. I do know that Symantec/McAfee have become bloated and use too many system resources. When I get my new machine in the next couple days I will remove the Norton and probably install Avast. If I bought anything I would probably look at Computer Associates since I have heard that it is a pretty "light" program as far as system resources.

 

I use AVG. It doesn't catch much, but I use Mozilla and stay off marginal sites.

 

I'm a crazy person.

I use (and run everyday before bedtime):

1. AVG (Good free AV. It has caught 3 viruses so far in the year I've used).
2. Spybot SD
3. Adaware
4. CCleaner
5. Windows Defender
6. PC-Clean
7. End Task Pro
8. Zone Alarm Firewall
9. Spyware Blaster
10. Disspy Lite 3.0 Spyware, keylogger, malware remover.
11. HijackThis 1.99.1
12. Auslogics Defrag

I'm obsessed! BTW -- I love free stuff.

 

The wording on the poll isn't so great. The free antivirus are better than nothing by far, however, the paid versions will always offer better/quicker updating and more accurate detection and prevention. I had to say no, but I don't think they are atrocious by any means.

 

I bet you floss.

 

I personally use Avast, its caught a few viruses over the past few years I've used it on the last few computers I've had. It's lightweight, free, updates usually once a day, sometimes more and creates, scans e-mail in outlook, scans files as you open them, web pages as you load them, can automatically create a virus recovery database to restore infected files if they can't be repaired. When compared the free ones tend to rate slightly below some of the paid ones, but they do their job, and do it surprisingly well.

 

This is similar to my antivirus software. (Norton; which came pre-installed with my hp) With the internet security is enabled pops and ads are blocked. It's a nice addition to 2 firewalls.

 

I dislike Norton intensly.,very bloated and slow.

 

I used Avast then switched to AVG, but AVG was taking to long to startup so I switched back to Avast I haven't had any problems with it so I don't feel the need to pay for one.

 

I also dislike Norton. I used to use Systemworks and tools like WinDoctor seemed to be helpful, but it just kept on demanding more and more resources. Eventually it was noticeably slowing down my machine. I switched to Avast and it has caught a few over the last couple years. It also made my now 6 year old 800mhz Athlon with 512MB feel pretty fast again, something that couldnt be said when Norton was installed. I just got a new A8JS and immediately uninstalled Internet Security and installed Avast.

 

Hehe... Same here. I run:

Zone Alarm Security Suite
Ad-aware Personal
Spyware Doctor
Spybot S& D
CCleaner
Registry Mechanic 5
System Mechanic 6
Tuneup 2007
Diskeeper pro
AVG Anti-spyware
MS Defender
Spyware Blaster
Hijack This!




Anyways, my main motive for creating this thread was because that I was worried about ZA (which is basically based on CA'S E-Z trust) not able to detect all the viruses on my computer. However, the general opinion here is that ZA is better than(or a least the same as) the free ones. However, after reading through most of the "Best Antivirus" thread, I discovered 2 new anti-virus software that I was unaware before. How would you guys think BitDefender and Nod32 compare to ZA? Thank in advance.

 

I do believe there is a significant difference between most paid and free AV offerings.

The four mainstream paid AVs I would recommend are:

1. Norton (Enterprise)
2. McAfee (Enterprise)
3. Kaspersky
4. NOD32

Year after year, these four perform exceptionally well in AV comparative tests.

 

I use avast, and have had much better luck with them than Norton. It is free and works great. It updates every day, and catches everything! I love avast!

 

I used AVG with no problems and switched to Avast in January and all runs normally.

Why companies are offering free versions? To have reports of new viruses or because they are so generous? or ...

 

I've used AVG and it's ok for being free. My new laptop came with Norton IS 2006 and it sucks as far as using system resources. Then I looked into Panda and found this article written only a few days ago: http://www.pandasoftware.com/about_...2007_outperforms_rivals_in_VeriTest_study.htm

Dowloaded the trial of Panda Internet Security 2007, uninstalled Norton and installed Panda. Loving it so far as far as how lean it runs and how it doesn't hug CPU or RAM. I'll probably pay for a year license soon to keep the full version. Oh, and the first time it ran, it uncovered 45 instances of spyware and 1 hacker tool that Norton didn't detect at all.

 

My best experience with commercial antivirus always leads me back to Micro-Trend PC-Cillin.

 

I bought AVG Pro + Firewall after years of using AVG Free. Very light - 33mb total ram use. Unobtrusive *cough* ZL constant pop-ups *cough*. Regular updates on a speedy server. I've not had to do anything except set it on auto for a domain (uni connection here). Most technical I have to get is to add a new program to the list and choose "allow, block or ask". Very simple

Oh, its a 2 year license for $50 or £31

For an a/v+firewall solution in one its quite good. Whether its improved my security I don't know, as I don't *browse* or read emails from anyone I don't know. I think a decent free a/v is perfectly fine, so long as you have responsible browsing habits

 

I use NOD32 for x64, older version of CA (before they went security Center) - and for customers who dont want to pay for AV I suggest Avast! for their daily AV updates, I have found in personal experience that Avast! finds more Viruses over AVG - And I would take Avast over Norton/McAfee any day of the week (which I have found to be due to the fact that def updates are not daily and are every 3 - 4 days (corporate versions every longer))

For the previous posters I read with the massive amount of firewall/antispyware programs running this is my opinion - Too much of anything is always bad in the long run (slow down of PC performance (maybe not yours) interference with apps (business wise) and av/antispy programs messing with each other themselves) - I preload (for new pcs) AV (Avast!, CA, or NOD32), use Windows Firewall, Ad-Aware, Spybot, and Windows Defender - Two apps for scanning, and 2 realtime scanners (AV, WD) - I have yet to have a machine come back full of adware/spyware/viruses and the users that run the programs every month are two when I see the machines they run like the first day they were purchased - I do use the CCleaner, ect when necessary (on pc's that had no protection and users that went click happy) but most problems can be resolved with those 5 (listed above) and some manually removal of whats left - Only personal experience and what I have done/tested/dealt with over the past 5 years and what I find best to work for my clients and self -

 

Since I starting this post, I done an experiment to compare different anti-virus software:

1)

 

Since I starting this post, I had done an experiment to compare different anti-virus software:

I deliberately went to dangerous sites and exposed my old notebook to all sorts of dangers (including torrents)

I installed (1 at a time) different anti-virus (ZA, Avast!, AVG, Norton 2005)software and look for viruses. Surprisingly, Norton and Nod32 are the only one that found a virus on the comp. So is this just a freak event or is Norton (though resource intensive) is the most comprehensive one?

 

Norton is actually fairly good at detection and removal; it's just that it's so bloated.

Also, since Norton is so popular, most viruses are coded to disable Norton specifically.

 

I've tried a number of anti-viruses and I think NOD32, Norton, and McAfee work best. Norton is too much of resource hog, though, and so is McAfee. NOD32 is the best and lightest in my opinion. But currently I'm not using any of the three, I'm using Avast because it's free.

 

I don't use any anti-virus on my Ubuntu tablet.

Back in the XP/Vista days, I found that the free programs (AVG, Trendmicro, etc) used a lot less system resources than for-pay ones. Programs like AVG are really great with daily updates and heuristic scanning.

At this point, with AVG Free, there isn't really a need to pay for Antivirus, IMO.

 

Just use Avast free home edition and be done with it.