Anti-virus Comparables(16 posts)
Another view: http://www.suggestafix.com/ind.....bdc8207d1c
Though this guy's review is WAY outdated, he did rate NOD32 as no better than good, and seemed to take on those that worship at the alter of NOD32's heuristic's and rave about it as the "best". Again, while he did rate NOD32 as good, he made a point by saying that it was no better than all the other good ones.
Scroll just about an inch down to see his review of NOD32.
Without me having to manually check, does anyone off hand the price of the 15 listed in the test?
I am currently using Avast, which despite certain negative opinions is a good Anti-Virus. It is actually the only Anti-Virus that stopped a virus that was spread on the network my first year at college. Avast is also very good on system resources and doesn't take over your computer like Norton tries to.
AVG is the only Anti-Virus I don't much like, especially after the issue a while back a few HTG users had.
So anyway, if anyone knows the prices and lack of price of those listed, I would appreciate it, if for nothing else to satisfy my curiosity.
I usually hear the most of AntiVir, Avast, and AVG. (The letter A is very popular with Anti-Virus software.)
Also, I can't seem to find a reason to buy an Anti-Virus, the "extra features" are always things like Anti-Spyware, Firewall, etc. Is there a reason to pay for Anti-Virus on a home computer? (I know this is opinionated, but I would like to hear everyone's.)
Some people believe that if an antivirus is a paid version, than it "must" be better just by virtue of "paid" . . . the reasoning being that paying money for something automatically makes it superior. My opinion is that this logic is flawed.
I have had both a retail antivirus (McAfee) and a FREE one (Avira's AntiVir), and was satisfied with both . . . though AntiVir consumed much less resources. I couldn't see much difference between the two, except one made my wallet a little lighter. As a matter of fact, if I was pressed to offer an opinion I would say that AntiVir was slightly superior to McAfee.
I think claims that a paid antivirus program is superior are mostly marketing ploys by the retail guys.
And those all-in-one suites, to me, are the height of marketing ploys, especially with the packaging that entices novices by essentially saying that this will do everything perfectly. Suites, as far as I'm concerned, do a little bit of everything, AND NOTHING PERFECTLY.
Standalones are dedicated to just one thing, and they do it better than suites. Very often, the code required to integrate a firewall component with a spyware component with an antivirus component, with a . . . whatever the claim is . . . dilutes ALL those components and even creates conflicts between them.
A free standalone antivirus, a free standalone firewall, and a free antispyware are fine just as long as they get along with each other.
I use AntiVir, Comodo, SuperAntispyware, Spybot S&D, and Adaware . . . and they all play nice with each other.
A good combo for one level of security. Of course I use a sandbox for another level of security. Multilayered security is the way to go.
NOT if you're pleased with Avast and it works and plays well with your system. I tried Avast and AVG, and finally settled on AntiVir ONLY because I was most comfortable with that particular GUI. Since they are all pretty comparable in protection capabilities (and some would argue that, but my own evaluations have led me to believe my statement is credible), it really comes down to what you AND your system are most comfortable with.
I think whs once characterized the question of "what's the best antivirus" as similar to asking "what's the best wine". It's just a matter of taste as long as you stay with the mainstream reliable vendors.
So stay with Avast if you like it.
Okay. I will definitely check out AntiVir. I was never a big fan of Avast's GUI, but have had great success with the Anti-Virus itself. It has saved me quiet a few times at college from a Virus that got on the network, and at home from random "I was trying to find something on Google and ended up on some weird site that was totally not what the Google result said it was" sites.
Why the mass hatred of Avast? I have never actually seen anything legitimate to discredit it? AVG on the other hand... http://www.howtogeek.com/forum.....l-vs-vista
jm, bob, i wasn't trying to start anything. i've tried just about every antivirus/antispyware/security program i could find. then give a review for people who know nothing about a computer or the internet (like myself). no one showed me anything so i try to make it easy on beginners by telling them exactly what to expect from something they've never used. it's just not avast i despise, there's comodo, spyware terminator, spybot search and destroy, any registry cleaner/ optimizer, avg, rising antivirus. there's a huge list and most are what everyone likes.
nothing personal :)
i recently was troubled with trojan Vundo and a Vundo BHO? and none of the programs like
Avast, Sueprantispyware, Spy Doctor ,Avir, Zilla, while detecting the virus did not remove them.
In running Combofix the removal of the trojans was completed in a few minutes.The process was easy to follow and the
print out log confirmed its ability..excellent program.
I´ll stick to my Kapersky 2009 and Norton Antibot, have never had any problems with them. (No false positives). I used to swear by N.I.S., but everytime Symantec made a new product it just got hungrier and hungrier. I have recently read an article over here in Germany from Chip magazin that puts N.I.S. 2009 back on top ahead of Kapersky.They have finally removed the issues of hogging system resources, faster boot times and quicker definition updates are also available. Maybe I´ll go back to them next year!!
Yes, Combofix is a powerful "industrial strength" malware remover. BUT, I would not recommend that it be used by a novice. If used incorrectly, it can really mess up your machine. For example, if a user clicks while Combofix is running (thinking that it's not running or otherwise non-responsive, or otherwise gets tired of waiting a "few minutes" for Combofix to do it's magic) then the Combofix batch file may be interrupted, and it may corrupt the system.
If you used it with success, then my compliments . . . you were either experienced with using Combofix or just plain lucky.
Many malware removal sites have Combofix in their tool box, and it is indeed a good remover.
But again, I would not recommend casual use of this industrial strength tool. Unless you know what you're doing with it, the use of it is best done under the guidance of a security professional on one of the malware removal sites.
To expand on what JadeEmperor said, if you Google "SmitFraudFix" for example, another very good malware removal tool put out by SiRi, you will get quite a few malicious links to sites that actually have links to download a rogue version. These rogues, like all rogues, will actually PUT malware ON your machine, rather than remove it.
So that's why I say a user should get these links from reputable sites, as JadeEmperor referred to the Castlecops site (and Wilders, Auhma.org, BleepingComputer are just a few other examples . . . there are plenty of them) and use them under the guidance of security professionals (for example, an MS MVP in "Consumer Security" or an individual certified by "ASAP" . . . "Alliance of Security Analysis Professionals").
I'm not saying that you can't or shouldn't use these tools on your own, but I AM saying that unless you know where to get valid versions and KNOW how to use them, you would do better seeking the assistance of a security person on one of the many "highly recommended" and mainstream malware removal sites . . . especially if you're a novice to these powerful tools. That way you will avoid "some unknown tools that can somehow fix what the big players can't". To paraphrase what JadeEmperor said, I would be wary of Google searches for these tools.
This topic has been closed to new replies. Please create a new topic instead.