which virus and blocker is best i run norton but it tends to let things past my subscription runs out
in three months and i am not sure what to do ??
i run a two computers 1 being a laptop also a belkin router as both are in use all the time.
all suggestions will be appreciated
which virus and blocker is best i run norton but it tends to let things past my subscription runs out
well a lot of people seen to like avg
i think because its free and seems to get the job done
i my self use systemantec corperate but i'm not sure where you can pick it up at seeing as i got it from my mom's work i think or my work i can't seem to remember where but they both use the same so it doesn't matter too much.
This is like asking which is the best wine. A lot depends on the vintage. I follow the tests on a regular basis and the ones that always come up on top (in varying orders) are: G-Data, Norton 2008, Kaspersky, BitDefender, AntiVir, Avast, Webwasher. The ones that are bottom of the barrel are McAfee, Panda, AVG (especially the free version) and some others. But as I said, it is as with wine. Some like Burgundy, others like Bordeaux and still others like only that one wine castle. Read the reports on the web and find out what the "best of the day" is - that changes all the time.
Glad you saw the funny side
the reason i asked is a few weeks ago malware got into my system.
It was devil to clear took me many hours
was i glad to get rid of the never ending pop ups (celldarado) WATCH OUT
nasty nasty nasty
I got help from malwareremovel.com nice bunch of guys
like i say sword swallowing easy as pie
Kaspersky and NOD32 usually get the best reviews and a lot of experienced users swear by them. But I tend to agree mostly with what whs said . . . it's just a matter of 1) What you're comfortable with, and 2) What "plays well" with the other stuff on your system. Nevertheless, all of them may exhibit some problems. Antivirus programs are notoriously cranky. The most common bash on Norton and McAfee is that they are resource hogs. I have McAfee on my system (Enterprise 8.0i), and it's never been a performance hit, but for a lot of others it has. I've been using McAfee ever since the days of version 4 (over 15 years now), and I've never had any malware infections. But then I'm pretty particular about security and what I click on, so that may not be a good piece of software for a novice that clicks on everything indiscriminately.
AVG and Avast are two that have gained a reputation for not taking up much resources. I've never used TrendMicro, so I don't know how it performs.
As far as virus detection itself, they are all pretty good, and the ratings that the trade magazines give them are all within a few percentage points depending on what the flavor of the month is, so I don't think any one is a whole lot better than the other (of course, there are a few slackers out there, but if you stay with the brand names and exercise good security best practices, you'll be pretty safe).
Bottom line: As I said, it's mostly a matter of personal preference and what you AND YOUR SYSTEM (Norton is notorious for not playing well with systems) are most comfortable with. No doubt, though, you'll find plenty of people that will bash individual products. (And I think I just bashed Norton there!)
And if you visit Manufacturer forums, just keep in mind that most people come to those forums to complain about problems they've had, so your information from them is going to be skewed. Very few people visit a forum just to say "Atta' boy".
BobJam is right. Use what you are comfy with. If you had a bad experience with Norton, you may want to switch. Just make sure you use the Norton Removal tool before you install a new one. http://service1.symantec.com/S.....38;src=hot Else you will run into all kinds of problems. I run Norton on 2 systems with no problems and Kaspersky on 2 other systems. On this here system I first installed Kaspersky (the system came with McAfee that I removed immediately - requires a special tool to). But Kaspersky gave me a few problems and I did not want to debug it. So I threw it out and got Norton (which now does not scan properly) Can't win.
English, in addition to all of the good advice you have just gotten, I would suggest that you add other security measures. Since some malware got through your Norton product, it's clearly not good enough *by itself*. I wrote this short article in the wiki because this question comes up so often:
If you have questions about specifics, just ask.
i had kaspersky then i tried nod32. i bought nod32 with 5 or 6 months left on kaspersky. i'll never use anything else. i like having my computer actually run now. i use eset smart security and set the firewall up. i'll probably never switch, but it's more the users preference. me, i would never rely on a free security program as my main source. that's just me :)
Kaspersky is the best anit-virus and spyware protection you get a free trial then after that ends you have buy a key but you can even get them on Ebay for like under $20 like I did it doesn't miss anything!
i have been an avg patron for years,but lately i have been using avira free anti virus,i find it quicker to update and doesn`t keep spinning in the task bar and slowing me down,like avast did,that was a pain,avira is doing a great job,i am very pleased with it ......
personally Mcafee = evil
has tons of system processes and takes up huge amounts of memory
norton = less evil than mcafee, but still evil
also is a resource hog
avg = quite good
free, and does not hog many resources.
wallaceb, for my benefit, could you explain the "resource hog" part of e.g. Norton. I run Norton since day1 and never noticed any of that. Is it CPU, disk space. memory? Btw: AVG (especially the freebee), does not rate very good in the tests - whatever that is worth.
Again, The choice of which Anti-Virus Program you prefer to use is up to you.
Just Do Not Run it in a Real Time Configuration.
Use it as a maintenance tool and run the program manually after a secession.
This way, you keep your machine clean and don't load up (slow down) the machine by continuously checking uselessly every time you manipulate files, etc., etc..
Also, the only real way to ensure you get rid of any virus is to boot from another independent O/S and check EVERY file plus the Drive Tables on the hard drive you are cleaning.
As always, the way you run your individual equipment is entirely up to you and your comfort level.
Rick, I have seen you express concern about run-time security suites a few times.I have not made any negative experience with Norton, Kaspersky and even McAfee (of which I still have 3 free subscriptions - but I do not really like it). It is often said that they are resource hogs - but what resources. Disk?-minimal, CPU?-very minimal, memory?- maybe a little, but who cares - it's all paid for. Where do you see the problem? Your approach requires a lot of discipline. I would not trust even myself to follow-up on a regular basis.
I never said that AVs were resources hogs.
What I was trying to convey is that they slow the action of the machine down by checking (uselessly in most cases) normal file operations like opening and changes of Word, Excel, most *.exes, etc., etc. and other files on the system if used in REAL TIME.
I recommend ALWAYS using a GOOD AV but to do so in Manual Mode to perform routine machine maintenance just as one routinely checks for Spyware, Defrags HDs, Backs Up Critical Data, etc., etc...
My approach does take and require much discipline but is aimed at knowledgeable computer users.
When I setup machines for others, I always take their level of computer knowledge into account and most of the time, setup their machines up for Automatic Operation as they will not know the difference anyway and it protects them from themselves.
Remember, when I speak to you and other "old timers", I know I am speaking with knowledgeable computer folks.
When I speak to "newbies", my advice would be and is entirely different in most cases.
I hope you wouldn't think I would tell a child to run their computer the way I run my systems. That would be pure folly.
I hope you better understand now what I posted on (some) threads and why.
Understand. Yes, you never said AVs are resource hogs (others say that). But when you say "they slow the action of the machine down", that's kind of the same thing. I am actually glad when my CPU has something to do. 90% of the time it hovers between 1 and 2% utilization and 98% of what I paid for is not being used - lol. I actually like things all automated and I hardly ever run maintenance programs by hand (once in a while CCleaner). I guess in that regard I am a newbee or a very, very oldtimer. It probably has to do with our backgrounds. You come from a "hands-on" job, I come from a "delegate as much as possible" job.
Just a little bit wrong but you wouldn't know because it because it is not in my Profile.
Before Founding Phoenix Engineering Corp, I was a Plant Manager for Exide and GE Corporations so with +2000 employees per industrial facility, I delegated most everything (LOL) (LOL). When I owned Phoenix, most everything was delegated to sub-contractors and employees also. Have had a very full life but now my time grows short.
While I agree that an AV program run in real time mode might impede system performance OFF LINE, I would definitely run one in real time mode when ON LINE, performance impeded or not. A performance hit is a small trade off when compared to trying to remove malware AFTER the fact.
But, YES, the likelihood of detecting a virus doing simple file management operations by running it in real time when OFF LINE is pretty slim and useless, especially if you run the AV program in real time when ON LINE. I DO agree with your scheme of doing a maintenance scan periodically when OFF LINE.
But if you don't run in real time when ON LINE, then you would have to run maintenance scans everytime, not just periodically, after you got OFF LINE, and it would be like closing the barn door after the horse got out.
I respect your point however remember, you are not going to get a Virus unless you actually download something into your machine withstanding you run with the ports closed on your router, etc...
That being said, you must also set the the security level of your machine so that Active X controls and other code cannot get into the machine by just browsing. (Words such as "sandbox, Virual, etc... are always thrown about)
This subject can get really technical fast and I am in know way an expert in "hacking" so as I also say; it is up to the individual, their computing expertize and their comfort level as to how they run their own systems (OF COURSE) Excluding Children and the Impaired.
I'm really enjoying this discussion, though I haven't been contributing much. Here is an article that supports the idea that AV software is the worst kind for slowing down your boot time, CPU usage, and disk I/O:
Page 4 has the lists of worst offenders and page 5 has the numbers. Pages 1 and 2 explain how the testing was conducted. Keep in mind that this article is over a year old and most of this software has been upgraded. Still, I think it's unlikely that AV software, as a class, have changed in this regard.
Don't mean to carry this on as an "argument" (indeed I think we agree on some of the issue), but it gets back to what you said about novices versus veterans. For novices, I do think that running a real time scan while they're on line is appropriate, especially since they're prone to clicking indiscriminately. For example, a lot of novices think that whitehouse.com is the Whitehouse site. Whitehouse.com is a porno site (with the usual malware that will infect a machine with scripts just by clicking on a link), whitehouse.GOV is the actual Whitehouse site.
Even experienced users, and I consider myself an intermediate, run with a real time AV scan . . . I myself do. Nevertheless, your points about downloading (which novices also do indiscriminately) and Active X are valid . . . it's just that I don't think a novice does what you say about Active X, plus real time AV for experienced users is just another thing that may enhance security.
Ultimately, though, I agree with your point about comfort level.
Haven't read that article yet, but it sounds like it's stating the obvious: most AV programs slow things down. But IMHO a performance hit is a small price to pay for the essential security of an AV program. Now I'm sure Norton and McAfee are two of the biggest performance hitters, and AVG and Avast have secured a rep for being easy on resources. However, if you look at my post on page 1 of this thread, you'll see that I use, and have used for the past 15 years, McAfee. Had I ever noticed an unbearable performance hit with McAfee, I would have long since switched . . . but I haven't. That's not to say that on a lot of systems McAfee doesn't make an unbearable performance hit. I'm sure it does . . . but it never has on mine. Plus, I tend to agree with whs . . . what else would your CPU be doing?
Now I know this is heresy for gamers, where the CPU has to work heavily . . . so if I was a gamer, I likely would have an AV program that is easier on the CPU than McAfee.
Which brings me to another conclusion. Your choice of AV program depends in part on the primary use of the system.
Bob, there's no porn at whitehouse.com and no infections, as far as I know. :-)
I agree that the experience of the user is the best indicator of whether to run real-time AV software. It is the height of geekiness to run without a real-time scanner. Which one is a matter of preference. As whs said, at least pick one from the top 10. Anyone who wants to do more research can learn about detection rates, false positives, and resource usage, then decide what's best to them.
There did (and may still exist) used to be a porn site called "Whitehouse". The reason being, that one of the most fervent anti porn/violence on TV etc, protesters a few years ago was Mary Whitehouse. This was in the UK.
@ScottW, Thanks for the "Height of Geekness" Compliment !!
It goes well with the picture of "My Build" (LOL) (LOL).
Me and ScottW Agree on so many issues that one probably thinks we both deployed our systems using (Sysprep and Cloning).
If members are not familiar with those terms, look them one up (LOL) (LOL).
Kindest Regards :-)) :-))
Thanks for that explanation on Whitehous.com. I think the same thing must've happened here in the U.S. It is not porn now (I was reluctant to check it until whs posted the link). Yes, it used to be porn here also.
Hey ScottW and whs,
You guys are pretty "brave" if you entered whitehouse.com. That's a url that I've always stayed away from ever since I found out it WAS a porn/malware site (Yes, it no longer is). Some years ago, a friend of mine went to it and got persistant porn pop-ups and his homepage was hijacked after that too (I can't remember the name of the virus . . . I think it was a rootkit thing because it embedded itself deep in the registry). I do think I remember that he had Norton and it got past it.
Nice turn of the phrase "height of geekiness". Apparently I'm not there yet because I still run the real time scanner.
Are you trying to code in quote marks?? The reason I ask is because I noticed that in all your posts, there are parenthesis around what I think would be quotes (example in this post: Sysprep and Cloning . . . I'm not talking about the LOL's or the smileys). I know you are fond of "correct coding".
This topic has been closed to new replies.