Alright, basically I am curious as to what everybody likes to use as virus protection software. I have spybot on here and I had AVG, but my dad refuses to use AVG and constantly degrades it. He is a stern believer that it is absolute garbage and believes norton symantec is the absolute best, but I've managed to convince him to let me use McAfee instead. So what do you guys believe is the best and anybody have any suggestions on pushing for AVG with my dad or some other virus protection. All help is appreciated, thanks in advance.

McAffee, Norton and AVG all sucks. The best free anti-virus ATM is Avira and the best paying anti-virus is NOD32 and Kapersky.

My dad is convinced that it is norton and mcafee, he's smart, but on some topics he just refuses to listen to everyone else.

Kaspersky and Dr. Web are the few ones that actually detect something.

I use Symantec Endpoint. My Uncle has a business that has 4 computers, so he bought a 5 user license and gave me the last user license. It's a very nice antivirus, I'd recommend it to any business/single user.

If that Endpoint program is/becomes the same as Norton :? :ohnoes:

 

 

 

Good antivirus programs are Avira Antivir for a free one, and Kaspersky for a paid one.

 

 

 

Really, AVG is at rock bottom right now.

McAffee, Norton and AVG all sucks. The best free anti-virus ATM is Avira and the best paying anti-virus is NOD32 and Kapersky.

 

 

 

Nothing else to add to this thread, but this ^.

Thanks for the input, I'll definately talk to him, but he wants me to put mcafee back on this thing since i removed it to deal with a virus. It came on the computer from dell so i dont have a disk and i basically have no clue on how he wants me to put this thing back. I've heard good things about kapersky, but avira is new to me. Paying for it isn't really an issue though. Thanks for the input thus far.

I would go with nod32, it uses the least sys resources and it's very good at picking up viri(not quite as good as kaspersky, but the difference is negligible).

I like Norton. I run Norton Internet Security on 4 computers at our house. I don't like McAfee. A guy in the neighborhood asked me to fix his computer, the first thing I did was put his hard drive in my computer and virus scan it. He runs McAfee. I found over 150 viruses. I think that a major problem with McAfee is that it is so hard to tell if everything is running. You enter twelve passwords on startup, and then McAfee asks you to enter them again, and again, and again as you try to make sure all of the protection features are enabled.

I like Norton. I run Norton Internet Security on 4 computers at our house. I don't like McAfee. A guy in the neighborhood asked me to fix his computer, the first thing I did was put his hard drive in my computer and virus scan it. He runs McAfee. I found over 150 viruses. I think that a major problem with McAfee is that it is so hard to tell if everything is running. You enter twelve passwords on startup, and then McAfee asks you to enter them again, and again, and again as you try to make sure all of the protection features are enabled.

 

Yet if you go with a good antivirus like Kaspersky or Nod32 or Avira, you will find 150 more viruses :roll:

 

 

 

Norton is trying to come back though, it takes less resources than before, but still has quite a crappy detection rate.

I am currently using Avira. Works well, except for the annoying every-so-often pop-ups asking me to get the full version.

I am currently using Avira. Works well, except for the annoying every-so-often pop-ups asking me to get the full version.

 

Heh, I disabled those :P.

I don't understand why you guys think avira is good. It doesn't even detect a 3 month old trojan.

 

 

 

When I used norton in the past it was a memory hog and when it was running a scan the computer was unusable along with the fact that it's script seeker was horrible. It was detecting things it shouldn't even after I cleared it and wasn't detecting things it should. It took me three hours almost, but I got McAfee back on here. Word of advice, always make a restore point and never ever ever delete a license -.- not worth the trouble of getting it back.

I don't understand why you guys think avira is good. It doesn't even detect a 3 month old trojan.

 

 

 

 

 

 

If an antivirus that got all the viruses that existed, everyone would have it. There are no antivirus that catches all the viruses, and that's why we also have more than one program to get the Viruses/Spyware/Adware, most anti-spyware also catch the trojans, from what I've seen.

 

 

 

Avira Antivir has a better detection rate than most antiviruses, that's why we say it's good. It detects much more viruses than most.

^ That is definately true, out of curiosity what are your opinions on Spybot S&D, I run that along with any antivirus software I use.

I don't understand why you guys think avira is good. It doesn't even detect a 3 month old trojan.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Avira Antivir has a better detection rate than most antiviruses, that's why we say it's good. It detects much more viruses than most.

 

 

 

I'd disagree, A-Squared has a higher detection rate. Avira can't detect crap.

 

 

 

http://img37.imageshack.us/img37/5268/tmpf.jpg' alt='tmpf.jpg'>

I don't understand why you guys think avira is good. It doesn't even detect a 3 month old trojan.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Avira Antivir has a better detection rate than most antiviruses, that's why we say it's good. It detects much more viruses than most.

 

 

 

I'd disagree, A-Squared has a higher detection rate. Avira can't detect crap.

 

 

 

http://img37.imageshack.us/img37/5268/tmpf.jpg' alt='tmpf.jpg'>

Could you please provide evidence from an unbiased source? Not that I don't believe you, but you're simply showing one example which sbrideau2000 was easily able to negate. By providing an analysis of a variety of detrimental codes, you can further examine which antivirus softeware has a higher detection rate. But you also have to factor in the size of the program and the resources it requires; a track athlete isn't much good if he cannot run. Please also note that there is a difference between trojans and viruses.

I don't understand why you guys think avira is good. It doesn't even detect a 3 month old trojan.

 

 

 

 

 

 

If an antivirus that got all the viruses that existed, everyone would have it. There are no antivirus that catches all the viruses, and that's why we also have more than one program to get the Viruses/Spyware/Adware, most anti-spyware also catch the trojans, from what I've seen.

 

 

 

Avira Antivir has a better detection rate than most antiviruses, that's why we say it's good. It detects much more viruses than most.

 

 

 

I'd disagree, A-Squared has a higher detection rate. Avira can't detect crap.

 

 

 

Could you please provide evidence from an unbiased source? Not that I don't believe you, but you're simply showing one example which sbrideau2000 was easily able to negate. By providing an analysis of a variety of detrimental codes, you can further examine which antivirus softeware has a higher detection rate. But you also have to factor in the size of the program and the resources it requires; a track athlete isn't much good if he cannot run. Please also note that there is a difference between trojans and viruses.

 

 

 

First of all, viruses are very hard to come by, usually it's keyloggers or trojans.

 

It doesn't matter if the AV can detect old viruses or if has a big database of obsolete, ancient viruses, by the way all AV were forced to scan that file, so the file size is not important.

 

Most trojans and keyloggers used are fresh and close to fud, which is why it matters how quickly an AV company reacts.

 

 

 

By the way that detection is a false positive of an actual infected file. That's not the trojan I used, the trojan I used is under a week old, but better be safe than sorry right?

 

 

 

 

 

Edit: Lol at you telling me to provide evidence from unbiased source. There's no such thing as an unbiased source.

First of all, viruses are very hard to come by, usually it's keyloggers or trojans.

 

It doesn't matter if the AV can detect old viruses or if has a big database of obsolete, ancient viruses, by the way all AV were forced to scan that file, so the file size is not important.

 

Most trojans and keyloggers used are fresh and close to fud, which is why it matters how quickly an AV company reacts.

 

 

 

By the way that detection is a false positive of an actual infected file. That's not the trojan I used, the trojan I used is under a week old, but better be safe than sorry right?

 

 

 

 

 

Edit: Lol at you telling me to provide evidence from unbiased source. There's no such thing as an unbiased source.

File size, of the program, not the virus. By unbiased source, it's implied that I meant from a source other than an antivirus company or someone who isn't keen on selling a specific product. :roll: My point being, how can you assess the detection rate through one detection, or in this case, false positive?

First of all, viruses are very hard to come by, usually it's keyloggers or trojans.

 

It doesn't matter if the AV can detect old viruses or if has a big database of obsolete, ancient viruses, by the way all AV were forced to scan that file, so the file size is not important.

 

Most trojans and keyloggers used are fresh and close to fud, which is why it matters how quickly an AV company reacts.

 

 

 

By the way that detection is a false positive of an actual infected file. That's not the trojan I used, the trojan I used is under a week old, but better be safe than sorry right?

 

 

 

 

 

Edit: Lol at you telling me to provide evidence from unbiased source. There's no such thing as an unbiased source.

File size, of the program, not the virus. By unbiased source, it's implied that I meant from a source other than an antivirus company or someone who isn't keen on selling a specific product. :roll: My point being, how can you assess the detection rate through one detection, or in this case, false positive?

 

 

 

The file size does not make any difference. It's not based on 1 detection, I've noticed avira not detecting crap many, many times before, and even if the antivirus review is not from the company that sells the antivirus, there is such thing as advertising. That's how they do it in the hosting world too. Whoever pays more, gets the first spot.

 

If you insist on using avira, it's fine with me, but don't complain when all your passwords get stolen "out of nowhere" ;)

I don't use Avira because I don't run Windows and I was stating neutrality anyways. FIle size and footprint is very important to the end user, the comparison I used earlier was that a track athlete usually must run in order to participate.