Right now I'm using McAfee Total Protection (It's sooo crap I don't even know where to begin at) so I'm trying to talk my dad into stop buying this thing and buy another antivirus, I was thinking AVG but after doing a quick research I read about BitDefender...

 

I'd like some advice on what are the best antiviruses out there, also I'm gonna buy protection for 3 computers, so price matters.

 

Thanks a lot!

AVG is one of the best but tbh Windows Security Essentials also rates up there as one of the best (shocking I know, but microsoft did a good job with it). In terms of free options security essentials is number one, in terms of free and paid options it is still up there in the top 5.

 

If you need to protect three systems and are worried about price Security Essentials is gonna be the best choice.

I'm a fan of Avast and Microsoft SE. I've really never seen the point of buying antivirus, the free ones perform well enough.

Anyone know anything about BitDefender? The reviews I read sound pretty convincing.

This post is all going to be from my experience with multiple antiviruses.

 

AVG was a very good antivirus but has fallen and became one of the worst antivirus, although still very far from being as bad as McAfee and Norton.

BitDefender is a very good antivirus and has served me and a few friends very well. It shouldn't disappoint you.

Microsoft Security Essentials, that I use 2 of my computers is very good and is very light on the machine.

Avast is another very good antivirus, it has served me well until recently where I changed it to MSE (Microsoft Security Essentials)

Kaspersky Internet Security is good and has a very good firewall included with it.

 

 

My Advice? Use Microsoft Security Essentials, but if your father really wants to pay for an antivirus, thinking that paying is better, BitDefender is also a good choice.

avast pro and mbam

I'm hardly an expert, but I used Microsoft Security Essentials for ages and never had any issues. Then I got a new computer and switched to using Kaspersky. Once again, no issues :P I'm happy with both of those options.

 

For what it's worth, MageUK (who does know what he's talking about) is the one who recommended Kaspersky to me.

I use Symantec Endpoint - it's very effective, and doesn't destroy your performance. However, it's not free either.

If you want to pay for antivirus I'd also say go with Kaspersky. If you want a free antivirus microsoft security essentials should do the job fine.

 

I've heard good things about Trend Micro products and bitdefender as well but I've never personally used either of them. MSE does everything I need so I just use that on all my computers, scanning with malwarebytes and spybot occasionally.

I use a combination of Microsoft Security Essentials and Malwarebytes.

 

Obviously, by the reactions here, Kaspersky is the one to go for if you want to be paying, but MSE seems to do the job for most for free.

I use Symantec Endpoint - it's very effective, and doesn't destroy your performance. However, it's not free either.

I wouldn't trust anything that has Symantec's name on it when it comes to antiviruses.

.

I wouldn't trust anything that has Symantec's name on it when it comes to antiviruses.

 

Why is that?

 

MSE is pretty solid and should really cover all your basic needs. I used to be a huge AntiVir fanboy, but I realized that regardless of the AV program, nothing protects you from derping. So I took the time to not derp and just have MSE mostly for show and for a few fringe uses.

Symantec are the ones that made Norton (or at least had their name on Norton Antivirus). Even if Norton is much lighter than it's older counterparts, it still is one of the worst antiviruses.

Had AVG until it went to shit and now I'd go with MSE.

Symantec are the ones that made Norton (or at least had their name on Norton Antivirus). Even if Norton is much lighter than it's older counterparts, it still is one of the worst antiviruses.

 

I'm still not sure what you mean exactly. In what way is it actually one of the worst? Like you said, performance issues are significantly less apparent nowadays.

Symantec are the ones that made Norton (or at least had their name on Norton Antivirus). Even if Norton is much lighter than it's older counterparts, it still is one of the worst antiviruses.

 

I'm still not sure what you mean exactly. In what way is it actually one of the worst? Like you said, performance issues are significantly less apparent nowadays.

 

Norton is a resource hog, even if not as bad as before it still is.

Norton databases are often out-dated (compared to other AVs).

Norton often leaves stuff undetected that other AVs pick up even in a quick-clean.

Norton is a nightmare to get rid of, it has this 'helpful' construction where it hides the REAL uninstaller so even when you think it's gone it waits a few weeks/months then tries to reinstall itself via an update.

 

Basically Norton sucks ass in so so so many ways.

MSE and Avast! is my vote. My parents use Avast! on their computers, work laptop has MSE and neither have had any problems.

 

Ultimate anti-virus is Ubuntu, js

 

Norton is a resource hog, even if not as bad as before it still is.

Norton databases are often out-dated (compared to other AVs).

Norton often leaves stuff undetected that other AVs pick up even in a quick-clean.

Norton is a nightmare to get rid of, it has this 'helpful' construction where it hides the REAL uninstaller so even when you think it's gone it waits a few weeks/months then tries to reinstall itself via an update.

 

Basically Norton sucks ass in so so so many ways.

 

Based on what? Previous experiences? Unless you're still using Norton 2005, I don't think any of these complaints are still valid.

 

I quite dislike unsubstantiated claims. This review pretty much outright refutes every single point raised.

 

I used to frequent sites like av-comparatives and AV review sites because that was my thing, but I eventually fell out of the loop due to loss of interest (primarily due to a realization in regards to computer security) However, I'm still connected enough to know that Symantec has really upped their game in recent versions.

 

Norton is a resource hog, even if not as bad as before it still is.

Norton databases are often out-dated (compared to other AVs).

Norton often leaves stuff undetected that other AVs pick up even in a quick-clean.

Norton is a nightmare to get rid of, it has this 'helpful' construction where it hides the REAL uninstaller so even when you think it's gone it waits a few weeks/months then tries to reinstall itself via an update.

 

Basically Norton sucks ass in so so so many ways.

 

Based on what? Previous experiences? Unless you're still using Norton 2005, I don't think any of these complaints are still valid.

 

I quite dislike unsubstantiated claims. This review pretty much outright refutes every single point raised.

 

I used to frequent sites like av-comparatives and AV review sites because that was my thing, but I eventually fell out of the loop due to loss of interest (primarily due to a realization in regards to computer security) However, I'm still connected enough to know that Symantec has really upped their game in recent versions.

 

It may be better than previous versions, but I don't see a point in spending money on the subscription fee etc when you can get by using free software and common sense.

It may be better than previous versions, but I don't see a point in spending money on the subscription fee etc when you can get by using free software and common sense.

 

Well yes, but that can be said of AVs in general, not specifically Norton. People are berating Norton on how it's specifically an awful piece of software, but aren't justifying their claims for the latest versions.

 

I know a lot of people who don't run AVs at all and are pretty much fine. VMs are best for sketchy stuff.

Thing is, Cnet is one biased website. Other reviews and questions on their own forum proves it.

Thing is, Cnet is one biased website. Other reviews and questions on their own forum proves it.

 

What other reviews?

 

Looking solely at the contents of this review, it presents information in a fairly straightforward manner with little faffing about. They cite numerous 3rd party groups that test AV software for detection rates quite stringently. I guess you could say that they are only picking groups that have rated Norton favourably, but I personally haven't found any such source.

 

I've always taken a slight issue with bashing sources, like how some people absolutely detest using Wikipedia in any capacity. Sure it's easily editable, but many of the well-written pages are properly cited and there's nothing stopping you from checking out the sources they reference to see if they check out.

 

Although I don't like to cite informal anecdotal sources myself, I do know people who have stuck with Norton for a long time and while they admit it was really slow and a pain in the beginning, they really have improved their software in recent versions.

 

The best? Perhaps not. Worth the money? Also questionable. Is currently the one of worst out there? I'd like to see some hard evidence to back that claim.

I just checked a few review websites using Google, and there is plenty of evidence of it not being good You just need to check multiple websites. Then again I wouldn't trust an antivirus which had it's source code leaked from their servers last January.

I just checked a few review websites using Google, and there is plenty of evidence of it not being good You just need to check multiple websites. Then again I wouldn't trust an antivirus which had it's source code leaked from their servers last January.

 

I've checked as well and not found anything conclusive, at least for the most recent version of NAV. Would you mind posting some of these reviews?

 

The leak was of a small section of code from NAV 2006 and is obsolete anyway. Many malware writers are already aware of most modern techniques of thwarting malware. It's a constant battle really, but not something that really won or lost by having the company lose their source code, especially outdated stuff. Both sides are incredibly intelligent and fluent with what they do.

 

Overall this reference to the leak is mostly a red herring as it still doesn't actually relate to the efficacy of NAV itself, perhaps only Symantec as a company (at best).