Jump to content
anthony5640

in your opinon: whats the best Anti-Virus?

Recommended Posts

ive had numerous viruses on my pc and was wondering.. whats the best anti-virus to have? whicch one performs well and keeps your pc speed up?

 

I'd really like to see a poll from Atomic readers which anti-virus they use.

 

Except that it would not be a good indicator because a lot of people here don't use antivirus. I do use one but only for the warm fuzzy feeling lol. It has been years since I have had a virus because I practice safe surfing ;)

 

However most here can recommend a virus solution based on their experience while fixing friends/clients machines. Because most people cannot resist (no matter how much you tell them not to) opening junk mail or clicking on that pop up because of all the flashing lights, and the fact that they are the millionth visitor to that site and they have won a prize ! :D That's what keeps us in demand and keeps the $ rolling in lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been using NOD32 for several years now and find it ok. They're sitting on version 2.7 for seemingly ages then finally did a big update to the program and released v3 and now v4 has not long been out.

 

They have AV only versions as well as a 'suite' which bundles a firewall with it. Also includes SysInstector which looks handy. Performance and features have been improved.

 

Whilst on my home PC it's there just-in-case and have only ever had 1 or 2 detections pop up on it, at work it does well too, setup with the administrator console and the ability to mirror updates on site are nice features.

 

Not sure how NOD32 compares against other corporate anti virus solutions, but I find it good for our needs.

I do agree with TheSecret about it not usually being able to clean objects, usually have to delete the infected file.

I'm not sure it has low detection rates or false positives though. Virus Bulletin usually rates them high.

Historical overall results here for Avira, ESET, AVG and Symantec (need a login to view these, sign up is free).

 

I agree though for free AV apps, antivir is probably the best around. Light on resources and quick scanning. Though you do get a huge ad pop up every time you start the PC asking to upgrade.

 

EDIT: Just found this site http://www.av-comparatives.org

Download the latest PDF of results there or see summary in html here

Latest results (just looking at NOD32 and AntiVir results) show that AntiVir miss few samples (found 99.7% compared to ESETs 97.6%), but has a higher false positive rate (24 vs ESETs 13). Scan speeds are the same for the two as well.

Lots of other nice graphs and reading in the PDFs too if you have the time.

Edited by mark84

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This question always comes up in here, perhaps have a look through some past threads to see some ideas?

 

To narrow it down:

 

AVG is recommended by people who don't know any better, or had it recommended to them. It has poor detection rates, invasive behavior and can impact performance. There is absolutely no reason to use it in light of the other products available.

 

Avast is a popular choice, and quite decent. easy to use, negligible impact on performance, excellent scanning speed, very configurable, and decent detection rates. Avast is free for home use. I would recommend Avast as second to Avira, as within the last year the development team has been paying less attention to reported viruses, which is a shame.

 

Avira currently has the best detection rates, is free for home use, easy to understand, and relatively configurable. It does not have the features of Avast, but this should not be a problem for most people. It tends to rely on ads, however this can be easily disabled. There is a negligible impact on performance.

 

Nod32 tends to be recommended by people who are familiar with it. In reality, it is less effective and has less features than Avira or Avast. It has lower detection rates, slower performance, is not as easy to use and often does not clean up effectively. It also has a high false positive rate, which is just annoying. Considering that it is not free and has no advantage, there is very little reason to suggest this.

 

The well known products such as Norton, McAfee, CA and Sophos tend to be tailored more for a corporate environment, having features that are meant to make large scale administration and configuration simpler. For home use, they are expensive, slow and redundant.

 

The best choice is Avira. You should also use software such as Spybot S&D and Malwarebytes to scan for malware, which can be more of a risk these days. The very best advice is just to employ common sense when downloading and using the internet, and you won't need a virus scanner in the first place. Stay up to date with security fixes, don't download dodgy executables etc..

That may just be the most accurate reply on this topic I've ever seen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

McAfee is the best. And that's that.

Yeah...I agree.

 

Same. I couldn't trust anything else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AIMBOT, while its fun to do in the greenroom, I dont think its on to adjust a quote like that when people may skim read the thread looking for advice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

THeSecret's initial reply is worth putting my name behind - i agree with 95% of it :)

 

 

The 5% is that CA is tailored for corporate users - yes and no...

 

 

CA does have a consumer arm, which is a slightly lesser featured version of the enterprise software. CA eTrust comes as a standalone AV system, or a suite which includes spyware, spam, AV, firewall(rebadged zone alarm) etc etc etc...

 

http://home3.ca.com/Microsoft/Default.aspx?sc_lang=en-US

 

That link provides some decent savings - they usually change from year to year, but the offer(s) has been there for atleast 3 years so far...

 

 

If someone wants a paid subscription AV service, it is what i suggest for them to use.

 

Otherwise, i suggest Avira, due to the above reasoning of detection rates, system performance, etc etc..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've used a number of them in the past... at the moment I'm using clamav on a RISC-based netbook... the fact that I'm not running the CPU or OS that 99% of this malware is targeted at already protects me to a significant degree. So really all I'm doing is preventing myself from carrying malware in infected files.

 

The limitation with this scheme is that it means I can only really run software for which I can obtain source code or has been compiled for my CPU architecture... which is hard to come by unless it's open source to begin with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After many years running an IT repair business and seeing alot of home & business computers infested with single & multiple infections it became quite clear which antivirus programs worked and which ones didnt.

 

There are also the performance factors. For many years Norton (Symantec) was considered to be the best. Although it did a good job of protecting your system it was a performance slug having a huge ram footprint.

 

In most cases you get what you pay for. In the case of free solutions like avg, avast etc you pay nothing and thats about the amount of protection you get - nothing. But dont get me wrong its better than nothing at all.

 

I have been a user and reseller of NOD32 for many years and it has never let me down.

 

It has a low ram footprint so it wont effect peformance, picks up and cleans up many of the viruses that others miss and its reasonably priced. Best of all unlike most antivirus which wait until the virus is on your system, Nod32 can detect the virus in the TCP/IP packets before it gets onto your system and offers the ability to terminate the connection. In some cases it can clean the infection from inside a zip or rar file and still let you get the file/s you wanted. Great for thoese legitimate no cd patches your after.

 

In our workshop we use nod32 to scan all our customers computers data before we work on their machines or connect them up to the internet.

 

Nod32 has never let me down or my customers who use it with a 99% resubscription rate.

 

Other programs we use include: Spybot search & destroy, spyware doctor, stinger, windows defender, malwarebytes and Hijack this

To kill alot of viruses we also use Windows PE & Linux O/S to delete repropogating files.

Edited by iansmrcomputers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In most cases you get what you pay for. In the case of free solutions like avg, avast etc you pay nothing and thats about the amount of protection you get - nothing.

This obviously is not true, as shown by pretty much any credible comparative test or review done. This view also contradicts your use of such programs as Spybot S&D, Malwarebytes and Hijack This.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In most cases you get what you pay for. In the case of free solutions like avg, avast etc you pay nothing and thats about the amount of protection you get - nothing.

This obviously is not true, as shown by pretty much any credible comparative test or review done. This view also contradicts your use of such programs as Spybot S&D, Malwarebytes and Hijack This.

 

 

Yeah Ok, I ment for the AV only. The free programs we use for spyware only not AV protection in real time. I would like to see your comparative tests but. I am just telling it like i see it in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah Ok, I ment for the AV only. The free programs we use for spyware only not AV protection in real time. I would like to see your comparative tests but. I am just telling it like i see it in.

Well, other people have linked to the tests showing the detction rates, with Avira and Avast coming out on top. As well as that, they tend to have a better features and customization options than many of the paid programs.

 

NOD32 is fairly meh these days. Norton AntiVirus 2009 is the best AV on the market at this point in time.

I disagree. While Norton is an impressive effort, it is still lacking in some areas. Detection rates are not the sole metric for what makes an AV good.

Edited by TheSecret

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah Ok, I ment for the AV only. The free programs we use for spyware only not AV protection in real time. I would like to see your comparative tests but. I am just telling it like i see it in.

Well, other people have linked to the tests showing the detction rates, with Avira and Avast coming out on top. As well as that, they tend to have a better features and customization options than many of the paid programs.

 

NOD32 is fairly meh these days. Norton AntiVirus 2009 is the best AV on the market at this point in time.

I disagree. While Norton is an impressive effort, it is still lacking in some areas. Detection rates are not the sole metric for what makes an AV good.

 

 

I dont usually believe what I see in alot of online test as they are usually run to show a specific result in favour of their prefered program. In my case i have for many years now used nod32 and it has found alot of the viruses that the cheaper and free programs has missed on a large number of systems. I cannot offer an opinion on Avira as i have never used it, but i will now based on your recommendation have a look at it.

 

In NOD I Trust :)

Edited by iansmrcomputers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know, detection rates are a large chunk, as are false alarms and performance.

 

http://www.av-comparatives.org/images/stor...vc_report21.pdf

 

Got any data which shows NOD32 to be superior?

I never claimed NOD32 was.

 

I also said a good AV is not entirely dependant on detection rates.

 

It depends if you are talking about AV from an enterprise, or personal use standpoint in order to say which is the best/better.

 

In both cases, I feel there are better alternatives to Norton 2009.

Edited by TheSecret

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand that. I'm just curious to why NOD32 is a better alternative, specifically.

I don't think it is, nor did I ever claim it was.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A restore won't protect against your files which are personally infected, and I don't think it is generally faster than a quick scan...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand that. I'm just curious to why NOD32 is a better alternative, specifically.

I don't think it is, nor did I ever claim it was.

 

I must have misunderstood your post then. I assumed by saying "I disagree. While Norton is an impressive effort, it is still lacking in some areas. Detection rates are not the sole metric for what makes an AV good." was in defence of NOD32.

 

In terms of home users, I still believe that Norton 2009 is the best solution. As much as I hate the company, it has everything going for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×