# Best Antivirus Protection



## robobobo

Hi Guys,

I currently use Norton Internet Security and have a few days remaining on the subscription,.

What i would like to know is it worth paying again for it or what are my free alternatives?

I have still managed to get a few viruses even with this and have removed several manually and sometimes norton would pick them up eventually but not always and normally after i had them,

So what would be best free anti-virus softwares for windows xp ?

Also do they all have realtime protection like norton or have you got to do a scan to discover if you have virus and also do they cover spyware malware etc.......

More than likely i would need more than one software?

So im open to all your suggestions on what you think would be the best combination for my pc 

Many Thanks Guys

Robobobo


----------



## strongbad8500

In my opinon the best free antivirus programs are

Avira

Avast

AVG

All three have both real time protection and a scanner. but as far as using more than one at a time, im not sure on this but i think it can cause compatibility issues. Ive also heard that norton isn't very good.


----------



## TOGG

I think NIS is a 'suite' which includes antivirus, firewall and, possibly, anti spam and spyware as well, so, if you are going to replace it, you will need to look for programs that claim to do everything NIS does.

I've never used any of the free antivirus programs, so I have no opinion about them. I use NOD32 and the free Comodo firewall plus BOClean (now known as Comodo Anti Malware).


----------



## Rich-M

I second Nod32, it's way ahead of the others. www.eset.com
and I would recommend www.superantispyware.com for spyware.


----------



## guitar

avgfree8 does it all


----------



## Bonnieclark

I use AVAST for antivirus and haven't had any problems. It runs in real time and updates itself continually. This is the site:http://www.avast.com/eng/download-avast-home.html
Some people have been having problems with the newest version of AVG so I'm staying away from it for now. Use ONLY ONE antivirus program.

As TOGG said, you will also need at least a firewall and some antispyware. Microsoft provides a firewall, but I guess it isn't as good as it could be. Lots of people are using Comodo firewall. http://www.personalfirewall.comodo.com/download_firewall.html

As Rich-M said, SuperAntiSpyware is a good addition. http://www.superantispyware.com/

So is a program called ThreatFire. http://www.threatfire.com/download/

When you are downloading these programs or others, be sure to choose the free ones. Many site offer programs that you can try free but have to buy later. You have to read.
I think you're wise to dump Norton because it is a real resource hog.

I'm sure other people will add to this list.


----------



## jsparky77

Avira AntiVir is a brilliant antivirus WITH realtime so it is my number one choice but i also use Avast AntiVirus. Avast picks up a lot of windows based viruses (win32) that other av's dont pickup. AVG's detection rate these days is terrible and it is resource hungry and it still takes a long time to scan so i wouldn't use it.


----------



## 1SillyBilly

I use Avast, but Avira is also well recommended.


----------



## robobobo

Thanks for all your comments guys,

Would avg be less of a resource hog than Norton? and is aviara or avast even less again?

Thanks for all your comments and i'd welcome any more


----------



## jsparky77

when avg is doing a scan, probably a tiny bit more resource heavy then Norton but i'm not sure...


----------



## Rich-M

robobobo said:


> Thanks for all your comments guys,
> 
> Would avg be less of a resource hog than Norton? and is aviara or avast even less again?
> 
> Thanks for all your comments and i'd welcome any more


Running in the system definitely less. Be careful though there are a myriad of issues with Avg 8.0 in different systems from XP and Vista, if you can't afford an antivirus, you are better off using Avira. Avast is a great looking interface but almost devoid of heuristics ability and my shop is usually loaded with infected pc's that had that on them. Beware the experienced user who uses these things recommendations as they know the signs of trouble on the internet and can survive with the most useless of antivirus and antispyware programs.


----------



## Bonnieclark

Rich-M...

Do you recommend Avira AntiVir over Avast? I tried Avira for about a day, but too many screens were popping up demanding attention. My computer really slowed down, too. Can you tell me what I was doing wrong? Is it that I only have 504 MB of ram?

Thanks!


----------



## Rich-M

Yes I definitely recommend Avira over Avast.


----------



## ToXiCaTioN.d

Choose the one you feel more comfortable with. It may take a few demos with each of the anti-viruses, but soon enough you'll learn how to use one and tend to like it more than the rest. It can be simple to choose a good anti-virus, it's just the matter of how much you actually trust it. Also remember that just a anti-virus won't do you much good now due to spyware and malware. Remember only *you* can choose a good antivirus because it's your computer. 

Good luck.


----------



## S T E V E 8 9

*Kaspersky, If You Want The Best Paid AV

Avira, If You Don't
*


----------



## Bonnieclark

Why is Avira so good?


----------



## nettyiam

One thing that was not mentioned was that some people still are using WIN98 or WINMe; I believe that only Avast & Avg are compatible for those systems. Avira does not support those systems. Kaspersky is rated very high but it can't be used on 
WIN98 or WINMe...
Just my opinion


----------



## Bonnieclark

Okay...

I dumped Avast, Windows Defender, and AVG Antispyware. Then, I installed Avira AntiVir, ThreatFire and COMODO BOClean. Now I have three questions... 


1. What do these programs do?
2. Am I covered now?
3. Do I need anything else?

Thanks for all your patience!

Windows XP
504 MB of RAM


----------



## nettyiam

Where is your firewall? I feel free AVG spyware remover is a good program. Suggest you search web for info on COMODO BOClean, rating I have seen are at 3. Threatfire & Avira are both antiviruses. It is always wise to watch where you go & what you download. If you are having a problem with security perhaps you should go to that forum & post a HJT log so a moderator can check it.


----------



## Rich-M

Threatfire is sort of another antivirus so I would uninstall that and download and install www.superantispyware.com instead to work with spyware.



Bonnieclark said:


> Okay...
> 
> I dumped Avast, Windows Defender, and AVG Antispyware. Then, I installed Avira AntiVir, ThreatFire and COMODO BOClean. Now I have three questions...
> 
> 1. What do these programs do?
> 2. Am I covered now?
> 3. Do I need anything else?
> 
> Thanks for all your patience!
> 
> Windows XP
> 504 MB of RAM


----------



## jsparky77

Bonnieclark said:


> Rich-M...
> 
> Do you recommend Avira AntiVir over Avast? I tried Avira for about a day, but too many screens were popping up demanding attention. My computer really slowed down, too. Can you tell me what I was doing wrong? Is it that I only have 504 MB of ram?
> 
> Thanks!


I would definately say that it would be because of the ram. I found avira a fairly light weight real time engine but because you have only got 500mb of ram i am not surprised to find that your computer has slowed down. I would suggest upgrading your computer by adding 1gb of ram on top of your 500mb


----------



## Rich-M

Actually I only recommend any of those for folks who cannot afford a good antivirus, but for my own use I am a proud Nod32 user of over 10 years and would not dream of using another. For those of you in the states you can buy it a lot cheaper here:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=2060350377+50010734&name=ESET
There is never any system drag and you never know it's there until it doesn't like a site you landed on!


----------



## S T E V E 8 9

*Hands Down, Comodo Firewall Is The Best Firewall.

Avira Is Good Because It Barely Uses Memory And Has An Excellent Defense Rate. I've Had My Computer About 7 Months Now, And Only 3 Minor Infections

Spybot Search & Destroy Is A Must Have, Especially For TeaTimer
*


----------



## Rich-M

S T E V E 8 9 said:


> *Hands Down, Comodo Firewall Is The Best Firewall.
> 
> Avira Is Good Because It Barely Uses Memory And Has An Excellent Defense Rate. I've Had My Computer About 7 Months Now, And Only 3 Minor Infections
> 
> Spybot Search & Destroy Is A Must Have, Especially For TeaTimer
> *


You need to state IMHO as I think Comodo firewall is beyond useless and Spybot is ancient software which has no real place in todays environment. Tea Timer has never worked right and they do not even turn it on in the default sttings for installation purposes as it could be the most annoying untrainable feature yet to be conceived by a software maker and all that is IMHO!


----------



## Bonnieclark

Rich-M said:


> Threatfire is sort of another antivirus so I would uninstall that and download and install www.superantispyware.com instead to work with spyware.


Are you referring to the free Superantispyware or the paid version?


----------



## Rich-M

Bonnieclark said:


> Are you referring to the free Superantispyware or the paid version?


You can use the free but it means letting vermin in and weekly updating and scanning to "rip" it out. Much better to buy it so you can run it in the background keeping the junk out. Don't buy it now. Wait until second or 3rd manual update and you will see a $19.95 offer to buy it for lifetime.


----------



## robobobo

For a firewall.

Would you suggest using windows xp built in, heard its not that great though,
or comando or zone alarm?

and whats the best anti-spware software?


----------



## S T E V E 8 9

Rich-M said:


> You need to state IMHO as I think Comodo firewall is beyond useless and Spybot is ancient software which has no real place in todays environment. Tea Timer has never worked right and they do not even turn it on in the default sttings for installation purposes as it could be the most annoying untrainable feature yet to be conceived by a software maker and all that is IMHO!


Not Quite My Humble Opinion In Comodo Being The Best Firewall...

I Have Never Had Any Problem With TeaTimer, Other Than A Minor False Positive That Was Patched The Same Day.

TeaTimer Is Great When You Learn The Program, Spybot Has Always Been Good To Me As A Malware Scanner, & Anything It Misses, Ad-Aware Cleans Up.

As For SuperAntiSpyware, In My Own Experience, Has Been Absolutely:down:

Also, ThreatFire by PCTOOLS, Is Basically TeaTimer Rebranded


----------



## Rich-M

robobobo said:


> For a firewall.
> 
> Would you suggest using windows xp built in, heard its not that great though,
> or comando or zone alarm?
> 
> and whats the best anti-spware software?


If you have the best protection at the gate, the Windows firewall is all you need. Complaints are it is one way but actually after Sp2 it became partial 2 way but again it doesn't matter if you use good software running in the background to keep you clean, then you don't have to be bothered with all those asinine requests everytime you try to do anything.


----------



## S T E V E 8 9

robobobo said:


> For a firewall.
> 
> Would you suggest using windows xp built in, heard its not that great though,
> or comando or zone alarm?
> 
> and whats the best anti-spware software?


XP's Firewall Is Horrifically Floored. Not Sure If You Meant Comodo?? ZoneAlarm Is A Nice Firewall, But IMO, You Can't Go Wrong With Comodo


----------



## S T E V E 8 9

Rich-M said:


> If you have the best protection at the gate, the Windows firewall is all you need. Complaints are it is one way but actually after Sp2 it became partial 2 way but again it doesn't matter if you use good software running in the background to keep you clean, then you don't have to be bothered with all those asinine requests everytime you try to do anything.


*But Having A Decent Firewall Negates The Need For A Lot Of Protective Software, IMO*


----------



## Rich-M

Again let's not get into personals here it is your opinion. I have my own forum, and no one there would ever recommend Spybot, it's old technology and the proof is in the install where Spybot does not put Tea Timer in by default, you have to add it to the install, and you don't find that peculiar?

I clean 10-12 pc's a week with Superantispyware and it is an outstanding product. Anyone who gives a thumbs down unsubstantiated, is clueless to how good it really is. The "clincher" for me was 2 years ago when I cleaned a really bad pc with tons of spyware and it was completely clean with Spybot. Then I reboot and that was it as Spybot did so much damage to that system I had to reformat anyway. Sas has never done that in almost 500 pc's since then and the difference is obvious. Oh and if Sas were to damage a pc, the tools to repair Windows Components is in the program as well!

And PcTools, well that clinches it for me as I have never seen anything worthwhile from there IMHO. I could never get Teat Timer to stop popups every second on about 5 systems I tried it on so I had to uninstall it to stop that and that was it for me.


----------



## Rich-M

S T E V E 8 9 said:


> *But Having A Decent Firewall Negates The Need For A Lot Of Protective Software, IMO*


That's just so backwards and besides that no one claims that Windows firewall is bad, just that it's one way and other than all the annoying popups it is no different from any other . It's nice networks always work as do browsers without doing a "root canal" on the tools and options.


----------



## Rich-M

> XP's Firewall Is Horrifically Floored.


And this means what?


----------



## S T E V E 8 9

Rich-M said:


> Again let's not get into personals here it is your opinion. I have my own forum, and no one there would ever recommend Spybot, it's old technology and the proof is in the install where Spybot does not put Tea Timer in by default, you have to add it to the install, and you don't find that peculiar?
> 
> I clean 10-12 pc's a week with Superantispyware and it is an outstanding product. Anyone who gives a thumbs down unsubstantiated, is clueless to how good it really is. The "clincher" for me was 2 years ago when I cleaned a really bad pc with tons of spyware and it was completely clean with Spybot. Then I reboot and that was it as Spybot did so much damage to that system I had to reformat anyway. Sas has never done that in almost 500 pc's since then and the difference is obvious. Oh and if Sas were to damage a pc, the tools to repair Windows Components is in the program as well!
> 
> And PcTools, well that clinches it for me as I have never seen anything worthwhile from there IMHO. I could never get Teat Timer to stop popups every second on about 5 systems I tried it on so I had to uninstall it to stop that and that was it for me.


*I Did Put In My Opinion To Show It Was An Opinion.

If You Are Cleaning Out PC's, Then You Should Know That No ONE Piece Of Software Will Pickup Everything.

As For SAS, I Used The Free & Paid Version & Found Them Unimpressive.

The Clincher For Me, Is That You Highly Recommend ThreatFire, When It It Made By PCTOOLS, and As I Stated, IMO, Is A Rebranding Of TeaTimer*


----------



## TOGG

I have used ZA free and Pro in the past and am now using Comodo.

Comodo can seem difficult at first, and will need a lot of study of the Help files to set up properly. ZA Pro seemed OK but I lost it when my 98 computer crashed and wasn't able to resume my licence when I got this XP computer.

There is a site that runs tests on firewalls and you can see the latest results here; http://www.matousec.com/projects/firewall-challenge/results.php As you can see, Comodo comes out well, although I believe it only gets that rating if its Defense+ component is enabled. Defense+ is the part that seems to trigger most of the popups that some people appear to dislike so much.

ZA free doesn't appear to have been tested and the Pro version only gets a 'Poor' rating. The site makes it clear that you need to read the details about 'Interpretation of Results' and not just pay attention to the list of tested products.


----------



## S T E V E 8 9

Rich-M said:


> That's just so backwards and besides that no one claims that Windows firewall is bad, just that it's one way and other than all the annoying popups it is no different from any other . It's nice networks always work as do browsers without doing a "root canal" on the tools and options.


*Half The Spyware / Malware Infections Can Be Halted, Before Being Written Onto your Drive, By A Decent Firefall, Rather Than A Couple Of Removal Programs, IMO.

In My Experience, Windows Firewall Shouldn't Even Be Called That. It Offers F All Inbound Protection.

WF Is Horrifically Floored As The Purpose Of A Firewall Is To Protect Inbound & Outbound Connections, And Keep The User Informed; Offering Them An Easy To View Summary Of All Connections. The Fact You Can't Even View Active Connections Is Poor To Say The Least.
Its Like Driving With Your Headlights Off, Go Forth And Hope For The Best, But Expect The Worst*


----------



## Rich-M

> The Clincher For Me, Is That You Highly Recommend ThreatFire, When It It Made By PCTOOLS, and As I Stated, IMO, Is A Rebranding Of TeaTimer[/B]


I never recommended Threatfire I suggested they take it out because it is unnecessary. Please reread my original post.


----------



## S T E V E 8 9

TOGG said:


> I have used ZA free and Pro in the past and am now using Comodo.
> 
> Comodo can seem difficult at first, and will need a lot of study of the Help files to set up properly. ZA Pro seemed OK but I lost it when my 98 computer crashed and wasn't able to resume my licence when I got this XP computer.
> 
> There is a site that runs tests on firewalls and you can see the latest results here; http://www.matousec.com/projects/firewall-challenge/results.php As you can see, Comodo comes out well, although I believe it only gets that rating if its Defense+ component is enabled. Defense+ is the part that seems to trigger most of the popups that some people appear to dislike so much.
> 
> ZA free doesn't appear to have been tested and the Pro version only gets a 'Poor' rating. The site makes it clear that you need to read the details about 'Interpretation of Results' and not just pay attention to the list of tested products.


*Defense+ Is Great, Although At First, If Set To Safe Mode, You'll Recieve A Lot Of Warnings While Its Learning. If You Install It On A PC You Know Is Clean, And Set It To Clean PC Mode, You Get Less Warnings & The Same Amount Of Protection.

Although, I Will Concede The Area That Comodo Is Worst In Is Uninstallation.
If For Some Reason You Have To Uninstall/Reinstall, Set Aside Some Time.
Other Than That, Its Perfect, IMO
*


----------



## S T E V E 8 9

Rich-M said:


> I never recommended Threatfire I suggested they take it out because it is unnecessary. Please reread my original post.


*My Mistake

*


----------



## jsparky77

S T E V E 8 9 said:


> Not Quite My Humble Opinion In Comodo Being The Best Firewall...
> 
> I Have Never Had Any Problem With TeaTimer, Other Than A Minor False Positive That Was Patched The Same Day.
> 
> TeaTimer Is Great When You Learn The Program, Spybot Has Always Been Good To Me As A Malware Scanner, & Anything It Misses, Ad-Aware Cleans Up.
> 
> As For SuperAntiSpyware, In My Own Experience, Has Been Absolutely:down:
> 
> Also, ThreatFire by PCTOOLS, Is Basically TeaTimer Rebranded


Superantispyware is one of the best free antispyware products i use. ThreatFire is twice as good as teatimer and both adaware and spybot are oldies which need to be replaced


----------



## S T E V E 8 9

jsparky77 said:


> Superantispyware is one of the best free antispyware products i use. ThreatFire is twice as good as teatimer and both adaware and spybot are oldies which need to be replaced


Tut Tut, You Forgot To Sat It Was Ur Humble Opinion, lol.

I Have Used Both ThreatFire And Superantispyware Myself With Less Than Stellar Results.

I Had An XP Box That Had Sixty Different Viruses And Spyware Infections, And Scanning In Safe And Normal Mode, SAS Didn't Detect A Thing. AVG Anti-Spyware Found More.

Malwarebytes' Anti-Malware Is Extremely Good, I'd Recommend That.


----------



## S T E V E 8 9

*I'd Like To Know, Why A Few Of You Think Spybot, As You've Stated Succinictly, Is "Outdated"?*


----------



## jsparky77

S T E V E 8 9 said:


> Tut Tut, You Forgot To Sat It Was Ur Humble Opinion, lol.
> 
> I Have Used Both ThreatFire And Superantispyware Myself With Less Than Stellar Results.
> 
> I Had An XP Box That Had Sixty Different Viruses And Spyware Infections, And Scanning In Safe And Normal Mode, SAS Didn't Detect A Thing. AVG Anti-Spyware Found More.
> 
> Malwarebytes' Anti-Malware Is Extremely Good, I'd Recommend That.


1. SuperAntiSpyware does not say it pick's up ANY kind of Viruses, which it doesn't. It only picks up spyware so it is doing it injustice to try and make it pickup viruses

2. How could you get 60 viruses and spyware?? you can not legally get them ANYWHERE unless you have a special permit from the government.

3. Spybot is outdated because the only thing it is useful for is picking up minor spyware and adware. The only good thing about it is the immunization feature which still, only covers minor spyware and adware


----------



## robobobo

Guys Thanks very much for all your opinions,

What i think will work best is if

I have Avira as antivirus

Comondo as my firewall 

And im contemplating over which anti-spyware still
Not Spybot search and destroy because i dislike its teatimer and haven had best sucess with it before....

Either superantispyware or malwarebytes anti malware ( this is a antispyware is it? )

or is their any others?

Thanks again


----------



## S T E V E 8 9

jsparky77 said:


> 1. SuperAntiSpyware does not say it pick's up ANY kind of Viruses, which it doesn't. It only picks up spyware so it is doing it injustice to try and make it pickup viruses
> 
> 2. How could you get 60 viruses and spyware?? you can not legally get them ANYWHERE unless you have a special permit from the government.
> 
> 3. Spybot is outdated because the only thing it is useful for is picking up minor spyware and adware. The only good thing about it is the immunization feature which still, only covers minor spyware and adware


*No, No Government Permit, Just A Misplaced Faith In AVG & ZoneAlarm.

SAS should at least give some indication of any malicious code on your PC.

A Worm that penetrated my old PC was completely unknown to until Ad-Aware Found It.

I'd Still Like To Know What SOme Of You Think ThreatFire Has That TeaTimer Doesn't..
*


----------



## Rich-M

Those are the 2 best for now.


----------



## jsparky77

some others that i could recommend are:
Windows Defender
Spyware Terminator and
PC Tools Spyware Doctor

I think that instead of going for comodo you should use ZoneAlarm Free. I found that this had more customization/configuration options than Comodo.


----------



## jsparky77

S T E V E 8 9 said:


> *No, No Government Permit, Just A Misplaced Faith In AVG & ZoneAlarm.
> 
> SAS should at least give some indication of any malicious code on your PC.
> 
> A Worm that penetrated my old PC was completely unknown to until Ad-Aware Found It.
> 
> I'd Still Like To Know What SOme Of You Think ThreatFire Has That TeaTimer Doesn't..
> *


Well at least we can agree on one thing, AVG sucks.

I think that ThreatFire is a set and forget thing. it is easy to use and won't annoy you until there is a real threat. With teatimer, i found it a lot harder to use and it came up with popups every second minute. It annoyed the hell out of me.

And a lot of the viruses and spyware you found on your XP box could have been false-positives...


----------



## robobobo

Thanks jsparky77

are those antispyware programs free?
I know windows defender is as i used to have it, is it worth having and how good is it compared to others

is malware bytes anti malware a antispyware program aswell?

and is adaware any good

thanks


----------



## jsparky77

Those programs are all free or you can get a free version of them

Defender is good for low to medium level spyware ONLY but it is very good at picking that stuff up. I definately wouldn't use it alone. 

I have never even heard of Malware bytes before of this so i can not rate it but according to it's site, it looks like one that you have to pay for but it is a full suite, antivirus, antispyware, antirootkit, etc.

I find ad-aware very much like spybot, although this doesn't even have one attracting feature when spybot has the immunization. What disappoints me most about it though, it it's newest version. I think the older version was twice as good as the new one, although they made you get the new version to continue updates.


----------



## Rich-M

jsparky77 said:


> Those programs are all free or you can get a free version of them
> 
> Defender is good for low to medium level spyware ONLY but it is very good at picking that stuff up. I definately wouldn't use it alone.
> 
> I have never even heard of Malware bytes before of this so i can not rate it but according to it's site, it looks like one that you have to pay for but it is a full suite, antivirus, antispyware, antirootkit, etc.
> 
> I find ad-aware very much like spybot, although this doesn't even have one attracting feature when spybot has the immunization. What disappoints me most about it though, it it's newest version. I think the older version was twice as good as the new one, although they made you get the new version to continue updates.


Malwarebytes is free or paid depending if you want it to run in the background in which case you need to buy it, just like Superantispyware.
Windows Defender is totally useless and does nothing at all except occasionally fail to update and then refuse to do so manually. I know of no tech who recommends anything but uninstalling it frankly.


----------



## rangerdud105

Avira 

I second Malwarebyte :up:


----------



## robobobo

Rich-M said:


> Malwarebytes is free or paid depending if you want it to run in the background in which case you need to buy it, just like Superantispyware.
> Windows Defender is totally useless and does nothing at all except occasionally fail to update and then refuse to do so manually. I know of no tech who recommends anything but uninstalling it frankly.


Is there any free antispyware programs that will run in the back round?

Or will i have to just keep scanning all the time?


----------



## Rich-M

robobobo said:


> Is there any free antispyware programs that will run in the back round?
> 
> Or will i have to just keep scanning all the time?


Let me ask you a question. Is it poverty or unwillingness to spend anything for solutions that motivates your question?
Sas if you start free and wait for 2nd or third update will be $19.95 for lifetime purchase.
Malwarebytes starts out at $24.95 is this really too much to spend to keep your pc clean and not have to always update and scan to remove the junk you allowed in?


----------



## Joanie07

Avast is great and it's free and it's small - norton is such a memory hog


----------



## Bonnieclark

I think that maybe robobobo and I have the same problem with paid software protection, namely that as soon as you buy it, it becomes obsolete. 

After visiting a number of boards and listening to all this advice, I think I'll try Avira AntiVir, ThreatFire, ComodoBOClean, and Comodo Firewall. I believe these all run in real time.

Once a week, I'll run CCleaner, SUPERAntispyware and Spybot. 

Does anyone REALLY KNOW if there will be any conflicts with these programs? If so, I would appreciate your input. Please don't guess... it just confuses me more. Thanks!


----------



## TOGG

The Comodo products are both 'real time' and, as you would expect, don't conflict with each other (at least not on my computer). CCleaner and Spybot have never given me problems (though I haven't upgraded to Spybot 1.6 yet)

I have no idea about the other products you mention, but would assume that the antivirus is real time, otherwise it wouldn't be worth having!

PS. I'm not sure which paid software you have had problems with, but my antivirus (NOD32) hasn't gone obsolete yet and I've been using it for four years!


----------



## mydogtoby

I&#8217;ve been using Avira for a little over a year and it&#8217;s been so long since I&#8217;ve been infected with anything I&#8217;m not sure I even remember what the warning screen looks like. I had to dump AVG because of it&#8217;s complexity and from the recent problems I&#8217;ve read about AVG in other forums, I would run in the opposite direction.


----------



## prijikn

I think AVG better and Free. It doesn't cost and works alot better.


----------



## Rich-M

You know I know you guys think that these free antivirus programs are equal, but in a recent test I rediscovered one of the differences. I infected a pc with AntivirusXP 2008 with Avg on my system and while Avg kept showing it was there with removal popups you or your kids could ignore, when I put Nod32 on the same pc there was no way I could download the spyware application as NOd32 would not let me bring it into my system.Even disabled it still prevented it from coming in to system. It was a starling rediscovery of the difference in these programs.
Even though this url is about the Sas vs Mbam test, the end of it shows Nod32 vs Avg:
http://www.kickenhardware.net/forum/showthread.php?t=13957


----------



## S T E V E 8 9

jsparky77 said:


> Well at least we can agree on one thing, AVG sucks.
> 
> I think that ThreatFire is a set and forget thing. it is easy to use and won't annoy you until there is a real threat. With teatimer, i found it a lot harder to use and it came up with popups every second minute. It annoyed the hell out of me.
> 
> And a lot of the viruses and spyware you found on your XP box could have been false-positives...


 Nope, I Used Three Different AV's and They All Found The Same Thing. But No Arguements Here, AVG Is Sh*t


----------



## robobobo

Bonnieclark said:


> , I think I'll try Avira AntiVir, ThreatFire, ComodoBOClean, and Comodo Firewall. I believe these all run in real time.


What are your opinions on Threatfire? Is it worth having??

And also is ComodoBoClean a good program aswell, imo as far as i can see they look preety solid...

Thanks for any advice


----------



## Bonnieclark

I'd answer you, robobobo, but I'm hoping for some input myself. I don't know the difference between Malware, Spyware, Trojans, Adware, Spyware Trojans, Keyloggers, Identity Theft, Hijackers, Tracking Threats, Rogue Anti-Spyware, Unwanted Software, and Phishing. If someone could direct us novices to a tutorial, it would be appreciated.
Thanks!


----------



## Rich-M

I am going to say as an opinion only, if you use free software to combat virus and spyware then yes you probably need a 3rd party firewall because you have minimal and no protection "at the gate so to speak". If you have decent paid antivirus and antispyware real time protection such as Superantispyware pro, Malwarebytes Pro or Spysweeper that runs in the background or a quality antivirus such as Nod32, Bit defender or Kaspersky then Windows firewall is more than sufficient. The problem is in free antivirus the vermin is not stopped from entering and must be removed after entering and same for spyware where scans are run to remove but there is always the possibility the longer the crap is in, the more possible it can elude capture.
For a quick explanation this is decent:
http://www.spyware-removal-info.com/malware.html


----------



## guitar

paranoia reigns i've been using avg plus spybot for 10years without a problem


----------



## Rich-M

guitar said:


> paranoia reigns i've been using avg plus spybot for 10years without a problem


So do many experienced users. Some have nothing at all and never have bad experiences because they are real astute and careful surfers. But then we post for the norm, and their pc's are always infected in some way or another so better protection necessary for inexperienced users is usually the exact opposite of what happens in the "real world".


----------



## computertechie

AVG is very slow and highly intrusive when it does its daily update - both the free, professional and network versions.

Norton/Mcafee - Stay well clear. If you've just bought a new PC with either of these pre-loaded, make it your first job to take it off.

NOD32 is THE best: Best detection rates, least intrusive updates, faster scanning, good support and it's cheaper than Norton, Mcafee, etc..


----------



## Bonnieclark

Can I assume that the programs I am using - 
Avira AntiVir http://www.free-av.com/
ThreatFire http://www.threatfire.com
ComodoBOClean http://www.comodo.com/boclean/boclean.html
Comodo Firewall http://www.personalfirewall.comodo.com/ 
WinPatrol http://www.winpatrol.com/download.html 
will keep my computer safe if I only visit safe sites?

If I use SUPERAntispyware and Spybot weekly, will that work? Thanks all!


----------



## Rich-M

Bonnieclark said:


> Can I assume that the programs I am using -
> Avira AntiVir http://www.free-av.com/
> ThreatFire http://www.threatfire.com
> ComodoBOClean http://www.comodo.com/boclean/boclean.html
> Comodo Firewall http://www.personalfirewall.comodo.com/
> WinPatrol http://www.winpatrol.com/download.html
> will keep my computer safe if I only visit safe sites?
> 
> If I use SUPERAntispyware and Spybot weekly, will that work? Thanks all!


Not in my estimation as you are using the free versions which allow everything in and then "rip" out the bad guys weekly.


----------



## jsparky77

computertechie said:


> AVG is very slow and highly intrusive when it does its daily update - both the free, professional and network versions.
> 
> Norton/Mcafee - Stay well clear. If you've just bought a new PC with either of these pre-loaded, make it your first job to take it off.
> 
> NOD32 is THE best: Best detection rates, least intrusive updates, faster scanning, good support and it's cheaper than Norton, Mcafee, etc..


With AVG, I agree with you.

Why would you stay away from Norton and Mcafee?? I Stay away from norton because it is a resource hog.

I can say safely, that Norton, not Nod32, has the best detection rates, there will be many sites with tests that will agree with me. What makes the updates intrusive/not intrusive?? Is faster scanning a better deal than having a clean pc??


----------



## Rich-M

Again it's only personal opinion but I find Norton to be the worst for detection and in many years of testing I have never seen Norton do anything but quarantine a virus, never repel one or clean a file with one on it. MacAfee is pathetic in detection compared to the others while all can pass the VB100, there is an enormous difference in performance in the field especially with heuristics which is the antivrus software ability to sense virus behavior before a new virus is actually spotted and categorized. Nod32 excels and repulsing virus intrusions which only a few others actually do so the virus never gets in and has the chance to disable a Norton or MacAfee, something I see every day of the week withy them in my business.


----------



## dcook12

Looks like you got a lot of great advice here. I haven't had any problems with AVG 8 on Windows XP pro, but I just wanted to add to this thread that google around for the best uninstall directions first. I had this on my system and it was a bear to get rid of it all. Just doing the uninstall from the control panel will not get rid of it all. I don't have the info in front of me, but will search and post back if I find some info on it.


----------



## dcook12

darrenkook said:


> Looks like you got a lot of great advice here. I haven't had any problems with AVG 8 on Windows XP pro, but I just wanted to add to this thread that google around for the best uninstall directions first. I had this on my system and it was a bear to get rid of it all. Just doing the uninstall from the control panel will not get rid of it all. I don't have the info in front of me, but will search and post back if I find some info on it.


I found a good site:

http://www.askdavetaylor.com/how_can_i_fully_remove_norton_antivirus_from_my_system.html


----------



## jsparky77

Rich-M said:


> Again it's only personal opinion but I find Norton to be the worst for detection and in many years of testing I have never seen Norton do anything but quarantine a virus, never repel one or clean a file with one on it. MacAfee is pathetic in detection compared to the others while all can pass the VB100, there is an enormous difference in performance in the field especially with heuristics which is the antivrus software ability to sense virus behavior before a new virus is actually spotted and categorized. Nod32 excels and repulsing virus intrusions which only a few others actually do so the virus never gets in and has the chance to disable a Norton or MacAfee, something I see every day of the week withy them in my business.


Have you tried Kaspersky?? That is the one that i use personally. I find its heuristics as good but probably better than other heuristics-only programs like threatfire and spybot's teatime. it also picks up a lot of riskware, potentially unwanted software, and IMHO, i has a great detection rate.


----------



## Rich-M

Yes Kaspersky is excellent and so is Bit Defender though it has a problematic new version.


----------



## David_JG

I would say that I like the following products in order of preference:

1. Norton 360 (but only because I need the backup part)
2. Kepersky (only for the technical, hard to set up sometimes)
3. Bit Defender (has more security than many AV programs but again hard to manage sometimes)
4. Spybots Teatimer (for registry defence if your using Mcafee or something that doesn't look for registry changes)

I am also a supporter of the freeware programs such as Avast or AVG, as they will do perfectly well if combined with a firewall and registry protector - but tend to support the paid ones as its easier than installing several components.


----------



## robobobo

Rich-M said:


> Not in my estimation as you are using the free versions which allow everything in and then "rip" out the bad guys weekly.


Are you saying free versions are a waste of time and i need a paid one?

Do some of these programs mentioned not have realtime protection in them and some have the same features as paid versions except for a few small things like customer care or some thing like threatfire http://www.threatfire.com/download/


----------



## Rich-M

robobobo said:


> Are you saying free versions are a waste of time and i need a paid one?
> 
> Do some of these programs mentioned not have realtime protection in them and some have the same features as paid versions except for a few small things like customer care or some thing like threatfire http://www.threatfire.com/download/


Basically yes. All of the free antivirus programs report virus once in whereas most of the paid ones repulse them. I have found only one program that is free for spyware that runs in the background (Spyware Terminator) and it so far appears inferior to Malwarebytes, Superantispyware or Spysweeper paid versions which run in the background.


----------



## Clumbsy_Mage

I've gone from, Norton 2004, to Panda Internet Security, to NOD32, to Kaspersky. Have to say Kaspersky is the best so far, NOD32 wasn't bad either though. 

I've been thinking about employing the use of an additional anti-malware program, such as Spybot Search and Destroy, I'm apprehensive though because I always think Kaspersky is enough on its own. I think I'll install Spybot S&D tonight to see if it actually finds anything.


----------



## dojoman

I too have just installed Kaspersky IS 7. I was using Panda and have done for a while but for some eason it kept killing my internet connection. Anyway after uninstalling Panda and trying AVG 8 and various other proggys I decided to try Kaspersky, and up to now have been really pleased with it. Have found it very easy to use and uses hardly any resources, and I have not had a problem with my internet connection since installing it. I also use Ad-Aware 2007 and Xsoftspy SE.


----------



## Rich-M

Clumbsy_Mage said:


> I've gone from, Norton 2004, to Panda Internet Security, to NOD32, to Kaspersky. Have to say Kaspersky is the best so far, NOD32 wasn't bad either though.
> 
> I've been thinking about employing the use of an additional anti-malware program, such as Spybot Search and Destroy, I'm apprehensive though because I always think Kaspersky is enough on its own. I think I'll install Spybot S&D tonight to see if it actually finds anything.


Today it is inconceivable to me not to run antispyware in the background (paid version) as the problems are far more prevalent than virus these days. Spybot os old technol;ogy and seldom recommended by techs. Might I suggest www.superantispyware.com?


----------



## Rich-M

dojoman said:


> I too have just installed Kaspersky IS 7. I was using Panda and have done for a while but for some eason it kept killing my internet connection. Anyway after uninstalling Panda and trying AVG 8 and various other proggys I decided to try Kaspersky, and up to now have been really pleased with it. Have found it very easy to use and uses hardly any resources, and I have not had a problem with my internet connection since installing it. I also use Ad-Aware 2007 and Xsoftspy SE.


For you too I suggest running a good antispyware program as that is a much bigger probolem these days like Superantispyware ot Malwarebytes which are the "tip" of the industry these days.


----------



## Clumbsy_Mage

Rich-M said:


> Today it is inconceivable to me not to run antispyware in the background (paid version) as the problems are far more prevalent than virus these days. Spybot os old technol;ogy and seldom recommended by techs. Might I suggest www.superantispyware.com?


I don't know, that website seems tacky, it doesn't exactly speak "buy my product" to me 

From your experiences can you tell me how additional anti-malware products are necessary, I notice Kaspersky actively scans all incoming and outgoing traffic but seems to neglect cookies, which is one of the reasons I'm leaning towards another piece of software.


----------



## Rich-M

Clumbsy_Mage said:


> I don't know, that website seems tacky, it doesn't exactly speak "buy my product" to me
> 
> From your experiences can you tell me how additional anti-malware products are necessary, I notice Kaspersky actively scans all incoming and outgoing traffic but seems to neglect cookies, which is one of the reason I'm leaning towards another piece of software.


Not sure what you mean..There is a trick there though. Download and install free version of Superantispware and update and run manually for a while. After 2nd or 3rd update you will see a message and site to buy it lifetime for $19.99 which will save you $20. Buy it then register it and run real time with auto update then. use it manually for now with updating to see what is on system. there are even tools in it to repair damage should any occur removing anytthing.
Kaspersky is an antivirus and a good one. Spyware is another ballgame that an antivirus doesn't do much of so today you need both and you really need the antispyware more as it is more of a threat and highly debilitiating.


----------



## Clumbsy_Mage

For fun I'll try a load of different anti-spyware programs including the one you recommended, to see if they find anything, I've been surfing the web on this installation without clearing my temporary files for at least 6 months so if they don't find anything I'll be amazed.


----------



## Rich-M

Clumbsy_Mage said:


> For fun I'll try a load of different anti-spyware programs including the one you recommended, to see if they find anything, I've been surfing the web on this installation without clearing my temporary files for at least 6 months so if they don't find anything I'll be amazed.


Cookies aren't really a major threat which is why Malwarebytes doesn't even flag them but Superantispyware does...most of the rest are a waste of time and I would not go any further as many of the programs offered actually are spyware so you need tobe very careful.


----------



## dojoman

I have just got a free upgrade to Kaspersky IS 2009 and according to their website this protects from all types of malware and spyware. Do you still suggest installing Superantispyware?


----------



## Rich-M

Yes an antivirus works differently with spyware and will not catch everything.


----------



## robobobo

Oh God!

Now you all seem to be telling me that i have to get the paid versions of programs!!

So will the free ones be no good for me?


and would kaspersky 2009 be the best anti-virus and anti-spyware?


----------



## Rich-M

Not saying that at all. You asked me if you could use only Kaspersky and I said no, that isn't a good idea.


----------



## robobobo

Rich-M said:


> You asked me if you could use only Kaspersky and I said no, that isn't a good idea.


When did i ask you that?


----------



## Rich-M

robobobo said:


> When did i ask you that?


Sorry i got confused that was dojoman....but you did sort of imply the same thing that Kaspersky would do it all and I don't think so.
"would kaspersky 2009 be the best anti-virus and anti-spyware" was yours..


----------



## jsparky77

I would use all paid versions of kaspersky 2009, SAS and malwarebytes all running realtime for maximum protection


----------



## shellim4

Avira doesn't scan incoming or outgoing email. Isn't this a bad thing? 
Shelli


----------



## Rich-M

shellim4 said:


> Avira doesn't scan incoming or outgoing email. Isn't this a bad thing?
> Shelli


I think so...


----------



## jsparky77

shellim4 said:


> Avira doesn't scan incoming or outgoing email. Isn't this a bad thing?
> Shelli


If you are careful to only open emails from known assoociates this shouldn't be a problem.

Which version of avira are you talking about??

Both of the paid versions of avira (antivir premium and premium security suite) comes with the email scanner but I, only having used the free version of avira, can not rate it.


----------



## shellim4

Does Avast scan incoming email?


----------



## shellim4

jsparky77 said:


> If you are careful to only open emails from known assoociates this shouldn't be a problem.
> 
> Which version of avira are you talking about??
> 
> Both of the paid versions of avira (antivir premium and premium security suite) comes with the email scanner but I, only having used the free version of avira, can not rate it.


I am referring to the free version.


----------



## jsparky77

shellim4 said:


> Does Avast scan incoming email?


Yes avast scans incoming mail and *might* scan outgoing mail.



shellim4 said:


> I am referring to the free version.


The free versions dont have the feature as i pointed out up there somewhere


----------



## robobobo

So im thinking now of getting Kaspersky internet security 2009

It seems now it covers spyware aswell.....

Does anyone know how good it is in this section? and is this the best paid anti-virius 

Would i need any other software aswell?

Also i presume this would be many times better that norton internet security which i have at the moment and am not too happy with it

thanks


----------



## Blackmirror

I have Avg 8 free
spywareblaster
Malwarebytes pro
winpatrol and zone alarm firewall

im safe


----------



## Rich-M

Blackmirror said:


> I have Avg 8 free
> spywareblaster
> Malwarebytes pro
> winpatrol and zone alarm firewall
> 
> im safe


"Malwarebytes pro" Yikes I have to come somewhere else to see you paid for software?


----------



## Blackmirror

Rich-M said:


> "Malwarebytes pro" Yikes I have to come somewhere else to see you paid for software?


No it was a gift

4 of my friends have it as well


----------



## Rich-M

Blackmirror said:


> No it was a gift
> 
> 4 of my friends have it as well


Ah, phewwww!!!


----------



## Blackmirror

Rich-M said:


> Ah, phewwww!!!


Well its a good program


----------



## robobobo

What would be the best anti-virus software? Paid or otherwise

Kaspersky 09 or nod32

Also would kaspersky cover me fully now that it has spyware et or do i need extra software?


----------



## Rich-M

robobobo said:


> What would be the best anti-virus software? Paid or otherwise
> 
> Kaspersky 09 or nod32
> 
> Also would kaspersky cover me fully now that it has spyware et or do i need extra software?


Personally I like Nod32 better but they are both excellent and no, you need a separate spyware program as well.


----------



## jsparky77

Blackmirror said:


> I have Avg 8 free
> spywareblaster
> Malwarebytes pro
> winpatrol and zone alarm firewall
> 
> im safe


I dont think youd be safe if you are using avg. There are many better free programs that can do a much better job. id suggest trying avira or avast.

Also, never assume you are safe. If you do, you will sit back thinking that everything is as good as it could be when in fact there could be some improvements that you can make and if you dont get them, you might get a virus/spyware.



robobobo said:


> So im thinking now of getting Kaspersky internet security 2009
> 
> It seems now it covers spyware aswell.....
> 
> Does anyone know how good it is in this section? and is this the best paid anti-virius
> 
> Would i need any other software aswell?
> 
> Also i presume this would be many times better that norton internet security which i have at the moment and am not too happy with it
> 
> thanks


I think that Kaspersky is probably the best choice and you should find it better than Norton - many users do. Many tests have also shown that its ease of use and its features has scored very high. But before you go and pay for it, download the trial version from their site to see it it works for you.

Here are some independent tests that you can view:
http://www.pcworld.com/article/124475-1/article.html
http://anti-virus-software-review.toptenreviews.com/
http://antivirus.about.com/od/antivirussoftwarereviews/tp/aatpavwin.htm

As for spyware, is says it covers it and it does to an extent, but if you want the best security possible, i would recommend using a different antispyware program as well such as SuperAntiSpyware or Malwarebytes Anti-Malware.


----------



## Blackmirror

jsparky77 said:


> I dont think youd be safe if you are using avg. There are many better free programs that can do a much better job. id suggest trying avira or avast.
> 
> Also, never assume you are safe. If you do, you will sit back thinking that everything is as good as it could be when in fact there could be some improvements that you can make and if you dont get them, you might get a virus/spyware.
> I


I would like to see a nasty get through me 
AVG8 is a good free program
What works for one person doesnt mean it will work for another
You are best to try a few out and thats most important if you are considering buyiing an Antivirus program

For a good on demand spyware scanner Malwarebytes free....


----------



## jsparky77

Blackmirror said:


> I would like to see a nasty get through me
> AVG8 is a good free program
> What works for one person doesnt mean it will work for another
> You are best to try a few out and thats most important if you are considering buyiing an Antivirus program
> 
> For a good on demand spyware scanner Malwarebytes free....


It is true that it might not work for another, but isnt it worth putting up for a little discomfort to keep a virus out of your computer? also. avg does not pickup 'in the wild' viruses and some of those can delete everything on your harddrive in seconds.


----------



## Rich-M

jsparky77 said:


> It is true that it might not work for another, but isnt it worth putting up for a little discomfort to keep a virus out of your computer? also. avg does not pickup 'in the wild' viruses and some of those can delete everything on your harddrive in seconds.


I think you have your terminology reversed here, "virus in the wild" are actually defined as known virus and where Avg really sucks is with unknown as the heuristics are almost nil. The other issue is Avg brings in and warns. A really good antivirus repels problems. Those are too reasons why it is really a poor antivirus program.


----------



## DarqueMist

Rich-M said:


> I think you have your terminology reversed here, "virus in the wild" are actually defined as known virus and where Avg really sucks is with unknown as the heuristics are almost nil. *The other issue is Avg brings in and warns*. A really good antivirus repels problems. Those are too reasons why it is really a poor antivirus program.


This comment (which you've made before) confuses me a little. I just ran a test to make sure downloading eicar and AVG scanned the file during the download (not after) and alerted me me asking what to do (I do not let my AV auto delete infected files ... been burned with false positives in the past). Just as any other AV I have ever used has done.


----------



## Rich-M

A good antivirus doesn't bring it in and ask you what to do which is what you are describing, it repels it and tells you it did it.


----------



## DarqueMist

So you are saying the files get scanned in cyber neverland before they reache your comp? Didn't know ANY had the ability to do that, always thought they scanned the download in progress for signs then acted on the signs however you have it set to. I choose to be notified of everything rather than have a program decide for me. I'd love to have some more input on this, it truly confuses me as I don't see how an AV program can reach out and scan files you don't have yet. I do see how one may be able to abort partial downloads when warning signs pop up but then that's just what AVG did for me with the eicar test. If you have any links that explain this better please pass them along


----------



## Rich-M

Nod32 uses "Threat Sense", though this is a new name for an old procedure and Nod will simply not allow the threat in. It knows what it is so why let it in and then ask you what to do with it? Kaspersky and Bit defender do the same thing. This is also the antispyware application yet it really cannot scan for spyware as a full spyware scanner can, simply sense it and repel it at the gate.


----------



## DarqueMist

That doesn't tell me how they can scan a file that isn't on your computer yet. Thats what I want to read about. 
As to why ask? ..... you've obviously never been bitten by any false positives (I've had issues with Mcafee, then Norton (both pre bloat issues) and more recently with AVG and Avast)

a quick search of threatSense gave me this 
"ThreatSenses® Advanced Heuristics engine enables detection of malware not specified in the signature database. It proactively decodes and *analyzes executable code in a protected virtual environment* in order to identify increasingly sophisticated malicious behavior, characteristic of todays evolving threats."

again this causes confusion for me, where could this virtual environment be other than on your computer? And this virtual environment is it the same thing other AV makers call a Vault?


----------



## Rich-M

I most certainly have had false positives...you are not grasping the difference here is all. Nothing is scanned. Behavior is sensed and then the site is not allowed. It is similar to MacAfee "site advisor" except that is still your choice, with Nod32 there is no choice. Nothing is scanned inside your system.


----------



## boward57

I second that emotion.


----------



## robobobo

Rich-M said:


> Kaspersky and Bit defender do the same thing. This is also the antispyware application yet it really cannot scan for spyware as a full spyware scanner can, simply sense it and repel it at the gate.


So would the free versions of malware bytes or superantispyware be enough just to scan the pc once a week? In conjunction with kaspersky


----------



## Rich-M

robobobo said:


> So would the free versions of malware bytes or superantispyware be enough just to scan the pc once a week? In conjunction with kaspersky


OK once again the one product is $19.99 lifetime (Sas) if you wait for 2nd or 3rd update and the other is $24.95 Mbam.
Here is the difference. Go along all week infecting your pc and then once a week scan and "rip" all the malware out. Oh and if the program damages your system in doing so, well not to worry as Sas has tools to repair Windows from any damage it causes that may work but Mbam does not. Or buy the programs and have one of them keep the spyware out of your system. 
Which sounds better for your pc? That is one way to look at it.
The other way is how much do you value your time? $19.95 and updating and scanning your system manually, weekly for the rest of your life, vs buying it and having the pc do all that automatically for the rest of your life. The choice is yours.
Which is safe, well obviously keeping the problem out is intrinsically safer.


----------



## DarqueMist

Rich-M said:


> Nothing is scanned. Behavior is sensed and then the site is not allowed. It is similar to MacAfee "site advisor" except that is still your choice, with Nod32 there is no choice. Nothing is scanned inside your system.


I'm not talking about sites I'm talking about files. AVG uses a plug in similar to Mcafee's site advisor called Safe Search (which sucks by the way, I don't use it). From what I've read NOD32's ThreatSense is a heuristics engine used to detect new unknown threats not a "site advisor" designed to keep you out of infected sites.

You're right I'm not grasping it and thats why I want to learn how it works. I do not understand how a file sitting on a server doing nothing but sitting there waiting to be downloaded can be recognized as a threat by it's actions .... which it isn't performing yet because it isn't installed anywhere. I was hoping when I brought this up that you would post some links to people talking about this difference, some comparison sites that mention it in their testing. So far I've not found anything using google, you learned your opinion based on something. I thought you'd be willing to share some of the sources.

sorry if I'm being a nuisance, I'm not trying to start a personal attack. I'm just a person that is never satisfied with knowing something is. I need to know why it is before I can accept it.


----------



## Rich-M

> you learned your opinion based on something. I thought you'd be willing to share some of the sources.


You didn't ask for experiences, you asked for explanation.

I do malware and virus bench tests for my own forum and have been doing them for years for clients and another forum as well. Antivirus XP 2008 being on a site was enough to prevent entrance to the site with Nod32,even disabled but not so with Avira and Avg.
That is a critical difference between free and paid antivirus.

Let me share it as I re-discovered something I knew but had forgotten.What you are looking for came towards the end of that thread.
http://www.kickenhardware.net/forum/showthread.php?t=13957


----------



## DarqueMist

Rich-M said:


> You didn't ask for experiences, you asked for explanation.


You're right I didn't ask for experiences I asked for an explanation ... none was given. Sources were asked about not as a means of learning your personal experiences but to gain insight into what formed your opinion. I want to read what you read that got you there because frankly it makes no sense to me. I asked about files you keep going to site blocking now, something I don't need nor want. I'm getting no where trying to learn something here so I'll stop frustrating you. You obviously have no desire to share how you reached your opinions, you simply want to state it is so it is. ciao


----------



## Rich-M

DarqueMist said:


> You're right I didn't ask for experiences I asked for an explanation ... none was given. Sources were asked about not as a means of learning your personal experiences but to gain insight into what formed your opinion. I want to read what you read that got you there because frankly it makes no sense to me. I asked about files you keep going to site blocking now, something I don't need nor want. I'm getting no where trying to learn something here so I'll stop frustrating you. You obviously have no desire to share how you reached your opinions, you simply want to state it is so it is. ciao


I too give up because if you don't get what I am saying, that the site is blocked because of what is on it, in this case the spyware program Antivirus XP 2008 resides on a particular url, and Nod will not let me get to it even if I disable Nod32. Then uninstall Nod32, remove the registry entries as well and install Avg and I go right in and receive notices that there is an infection and the choices on how to handle them. Avg lets the infection in and then suggests remedies. Nod32 rejects the site all together because a major spyware program is on it ready to install itself. What is it about that you do not understand. That is the incident I included the url for that made me realize the difference. Then I went and tested more known sites with both antivirus on different image files to prove it is true.


----------



## Blackmirror

Mind you if the infected sites uses an active x to download the program then spywareblaster will protect you


----------



## mml

I´m new to Tech Support Guy. Reading thru these 9 pages has been very useful and a real eye opener for me.

I have Norton on a Windows XP Home Edition PC with 512 MB memory, just like *robobobo.*

My Norton licence is about to expire and I wanted to find out if I should renew it.

1-Where should I go to download:
- Kaspersky
- Comondo
- Superantispyware

2- Where can I find directons on how to completely remove Norton from my PC?

Thanks a lot for your help.


----------



## Blackmirror

mml said:


> I´m new to Tech Support Guy. Reading thru these 9 pages has been very useful and a real eye opener for me.
> 
> I have Norton on a Windows XP Home Edition PC with 512 MB memory, just like *robobobo.*
> 
> My Norton licence is about to expire and I wanted to find out if I should renew it.
> 
> 1-Where should I go to download:
> - Kaspersky
> - Comondo
> - Superantispyware
> 
> 2- Where can I find directons on how to completely remove Norton from my PC?
> 
> Thanks a lot for your help.


would you like to make your own thread please


----------



## robobobo

mml said:


> I´m new to Tech Support Guy. Reading thru these 9 pages has been very useful and a real eye opener for me.
> 
> I have Norton on a Windows XP Home Edition PC with 512 MB memory, just like *robobobo.*
> 
> My Norton licence is about to expire and I wanted to find out if I should renew it.
> 
> 1-Where should I go to download:
> - Kaspersky
> - Comondo
> - Superantispyware
> 
> 2- Where can I find directons on how to completely remove Norton from my PC?
> 
> Thanks a lot for your help.


You can uninstall norton completly with this removal tool
http://service1.symantec.com/SUPPORT/tsgeninfo.nsf/docid/2005033108162039

Kaspersky http://www.kaspersky.com/
Superantispyware http://www.superantispyware.com/
Comondo http://www.comodo.com/index.html

I am going to uninstall norton once my subscription expires anyway and will more than likely use kaspersky and some other anti-spyware


----------



## mml

Thank you very much *robobobo.:up:*

PD: Sorry if I posted my questions in the wrong place...


----------



## Rich-M

mml said:


> I´m new to Tech Support Guy. Reading thru these 9 pages has been very useful and a real eye opener for me.
> 
> I have Norton on a Windows XP Home Edition PC with 512 MB memory, just like *robobobo.*
> 
> My Norton licence is about to expire and I wanted to find out if I should renew it.
> 
> 1-Where should I go to download:
> - Kaspersky
> - Comondo
> - Superantispyware
> 
> 2- Where can I find directons on how to completely remove Norton from my PC?
> 
> Thanks a lot for your help.


That's a tough one but if you spell Comodo correctly, then all 3 simply put www in front and.com behind and you will get there.


----------



## jsparky77

Ok then, it looks like we can stop argueing because robobobo has chosen his security system. But if you havnt trial kaspersky i wouldnt just buy it. just to see if you can make your way around its interface which shouldn't be too hard


----------



## SaintSatinStain

Excuse me if I repeat someone. The question should be not the best antivirus protection but the best protection. The first rule is don't get infected. I recommend Sandboxie (there are free and paid versions, both good, but the paid more features). Run your browsers sandboxed and the infections that they let through go poof when the sandbox is deleted. Run your email programs sandboxed too. There are other virtualization and sandbox products, maybe some more to your tastes and more suitable to your systems and habits. I recommend that you use Sandboxie. Some users of Sandboxie claim that you only need some ondemand scanners, but I use Online Armor (paid, but the free version is among the best firewalls.) and NOD32 (AV-Comparatives list it as the best for the last two years and Matousec has Online Armor paid as second - Outpost is first; the free Online Armor is fifth.). I use as backup for these the ondemand scanners Trojan Remover (I use because I have a perpetual license and it can be configured to run at startup or ondemand), Malwarebytes' Anti-Malware for spyware and Trojans etc., ewido anti-spyware microscanner for tracking cookies and other malware ( I save its report and then configure my browsers to block these cookies, evenually I get no tracking cookies), and for rootkits I have Rootkit Unhooker, gmer, and IceSword. I also have SpywareBlaster because it's free, unless you want autoupdate, and it immunizes your system from many spyware. If you wish a free antivirus, Avira Antir Personal free is the best; it is better than many of the commercial products except for the very top. Here removed from the verbiage is what I use.
router - I use Linksys Router WRT54G2 v1, but D-Link and Netgear make good routers
Online Armor* - there are three versions Online Armor free, Online Armor, and Online Armor with AV (Kaspersky)
NOD32*
Sandboxie (paid)*when in use
SpywareBlaster
ewido anti-spyware microscanner
gmer
Highjack This
IceSword
Malwarebytes' Anti-Malware
Rootkit Unhooker
Trojan Remover
*realtime
Note that only three programs are realtime, there is minimal drag on the system (768 MB of RAM for mine) and there is imperceptible slowdown on my system.
Spybot S&D is of not much use with the new threats today, but if you use it as only an ondemand scanner it is another opinion. It is really unnecessary.
Harden your system first and then add security programs:
http://www.lbl.gov/ITSD/Security/systems/wxp-security-checklist.html

http://home.comcast.net/~SupportCD/index.html

Please check these sites for confirmation that my conclusions are more than just my opinion and experiences:

http://www.techsupportalert.com/how-to-secure-your-pc.php

http://www.matousec.com/projects/firewall-challenge/results.php

http://www.av-comparatives.org/

http://www.consumersearch.com/www/software/antivirus-software/

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,4149,986292,00.asp

http://www.checkvir.com/

http://reviews.cnet.com/system-utilities/eset-nod32-3-0/4505-3680_7-32955418.html

http://www.pcworld.com/article/130869/top_antivirus_performers.html

And look at ESET toot its own horn:
http://www.eset.com/company/awards.php

Eset's NOD32 is not number one on all but it is on most.

This site is probably the first site to check for information about security programs:
http://www.firewallguide.com/index.html
For antirootkits:
http://antirootkit.com/index.htm

Some places for related software:
http://www.nirsoft.net/

http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/sysinternals/default.aspx

If you wish to see what I use go here and down to June 20th:

http://bluestbluets.spaces.live.com/default.aspx

I hope that the testing site results and what I use is a beginning for you to decide what is best for your computer(s). You are ultimately the best to know what is right for you after the facts are considered.


----------



## infomagick

Thank you for this very interesting thread.


----------



## infomagick

Rich-M, would you give me your opinion of ESET's Smart Security? Is the firewall in there any good or is the gist of what you are saying that with NOD32, the Windows Firewall (Vista in my case), along with Sas are more than enough. I am using the computer for personal home use with heavy news browsing and more and more emphasis on video. At present, I am using Zone Alarm (free) and avast! (free) but may have to give up avast! for compatibility reasons. Would Zone Alarm and NOD32 be just as good a combination as Smart Security (I have become quite used to ZA)?


----------



## Rich-M

Windows firewall is quite sufficient with Nod32 and Sas Pro, I never use or recommend 3rd party firewalls unless users are using weak products like Avast and Spybot.


----------



## infomagick

Thanks.


----------



## Rich-M

Welcome!


----------



## Cookiegal

Keep in mind that everyone has their own opinion and have had both bad and good experiences with any given program. There are infections that even get past the best ones like Nod32 and Kaspersky. No one program can keep everything out and a combination of programs that have different functions and keeping up with the Microsoft critical updates and patches is the best way to keep your computer as secure as possible.

The Vista firewall is more secure than the XP one albeit likely not as efficient as a third party firewall but probably sufficient. XP though is another story and I would recommend a third party firewall unless you're behind a router.


----------



## robobobo

Do you think kaspersky would be ok with a windows xp firewall and i have a router along with a anti-spyware program be ok?


----------



## Blackmirror

robobobo said:


> Do you think kaspersky would be ok with a windows xp firewall and i have a router along with a anti-spyware program be ok?


Do you want paid or free ?
I use Avg8 free
Spywareblaster free
Zonealarm firewall free 
Winpatrol free
Malwarebytes that is a pro version 

Kaspersky is a good program . it depends what you need ...


----------



## robobobo

i intend to use kaspersky internet security 09
and im not sure on antispyware
more that likely malware bytes though i am uncertain on free or pro

would this be ok coupled with windows xp firewall and router

does kaspersky not have a firewall in it?


----------



## SaintSatinStain

Replace ZoneAlarm with the free version of Online Armor; it works well with NOD32. If you use OA and NOD32 remember to check the *intercept loopback interface* box in the *Firewall *tab of *Options* in the configuration of Online Armor.

A good free configuration: Sandboxie, Avira Antivir Personal Free, Online Armor Free, along with ondemand scanners Malwarebytes' Anti-Malware, Rootkit Unhooker, and ewido antispyware microscanner (can run from usb).


----------



## Cookiegal

robobobo said:


> i intend to use kaspersky internet security 09
> and im not sure on antispyware
> more that likely malware bytes though i am uncertain on free or pro
> 
> would this be ok coupled with windows xp firewall and router
> 
> does kaspersky not have a firewall in it?


If you get the Kaspersky suite it includes a firewall so you would need to turn off the XP firewall if the software doesn't do it automatically on installation, which is usually the case.

I would also add SpywareBlaster for an extra layer of protection.

http://www.javacoolsoftware.com/spywareblaster.html


----------



## robobobo

So Kaspersky internet security 09
with malwarebytes pro and spyware blaster behind a router aswell

Does that sound good?


----------



## infomagick

SaintSatinStain said:


> Replace ZoneAlarm with the free version of Online Armor; it works well with NOD32. If you use OA and NOD32 remember to check the *intercept loopback interface* box in the *Firewall *tab of *Options* in the configuration of Online Armor.
> 
> A good free configuration: Sandboxie, Avira Antivir Personal Free, Online Armor Free, along with ondemand scanners Malwarebytes' Anti-Malware, Rootkit Unhooker, and ewido antispyware microscanner (can run from usb).


Does anyone have this combination running well on Vista Home Premium, SP1?


----------



## Rich-M

robobobo said:


> Do you think kaspersky would be ok with a windows xp firewall and i have a router along with a anti-spyware program be ok?


I think that would be fine as long as your spyware program is a version that runs in the background keeping spyware out.


----------



## Blackmirror

Cookiegal said:


> If you get the Kaspersky suite it includes a firewall so you would need to turn off the XP firewall if the software doesn't do it automatically on installation, which is usually the case.
> 
> I would also add SpywareBlaster for an extra layer of protection.
> 
> http://www.javacoolsoftware.com/spywareblaster.html


its a very good program CG 
saved me more than once

Can you run Spyware Guard along side ?


----------



## Cookiegal

You can but I dropped SpywareGuard a while ago as it hadn't been updated in ages.


----------



## Blackmirror

Cookiegal said:


> You can but I dropped SpywareGuard a while ago as it hadn't been updated in ages.


I only came across it the other day
I just love free programs


----------



## Blackmirror

robobobo said:


> So Kaspersky internet security 09
> with malwarebytes pro and spyware blaster behind a router aswell
> 
> Does that sound good?


Yes add winpatrol as well


----------



## infomagick

Rich-M, Doesn't avast!'s "Web Shield" provider (included on the free edition and introduced circa 2005) scan the sites *before* the malware enter's the computer. Is there a difference between this and the way NOD32 does it? I hope you already haven't answered this. TIA.


----------



## Rich-M

infomagick said:


> Rich-M, Doesn't avast!'s "Web Shield" provider (included on the free edition and introduced circa 2005) scan the sites *before* the malware enter's the computer. Is there a difference between this and the way NOD32 does it? I hope you already haven't answered this. TIA.


Well I haven't used Avast for a while and I was really commenting on Avira and Avg mostly so I cannot answer you.


----------



## infomagick

Rich-M said:


> Well I haven't used Avast for a while and I was really commenting on Avira and Avg mostly so I cannot answer you.


Thank you for your help and opinions. Yes, avast! (free) is improving and is a lot better than it was before. However, they still seem to be having some problems with Web Shield especially on Vista.

I did purchase SUPERAntiSpyware lifetime for $19 based on your comments here and appreciate the tip. So far, it appears to be co-existing with my other installed security programs quite well.


----------



## cynosure1023

dude, i'm using kaspersky 2009 and i think it's the best. ^_^


----------



## infomagick

I'm loving SUPERAntiSpyware on Vista Home Premium SP1, it looks like the best spent $19 in a long time (certainly a deal for a lifetime license). 

While I'm seriously considering NOD32, I'm taking it slowly as I saw more than one post reporting compatibility problems with Vista. It didn't sound like the latest version was quite ready. I did have one friend on Vista recommend Smart Security highly though, he seemed to really like it. I was using Zone Alarm and avast! (replaced for the moment by Avira for compatibility reasons) and haven't had a virus infection for more than ten years. I don't knowingly venture into potentially dangerous sites much, nor do I use StumbleUpon to any degree these days either. I think my cracking days are also almost certainly over, so I'm leaving out Sandboxie for the moment (a mistake possibly). Kaspersky has so many ardent followers that I'm taking a closer look. 

With the seemingly excellent security features built into Vista, along with Zone Alarm, Avira, Spybot S&D, Ad-aware, SUPERAntiSpyware, and several Firefox extensions (i.e. WOT, NoScript, Flashblock, etc.) all co-existing peacefully for the moment, I'm feeling much more secure these days. I would like to refine my system much further though.


----------



## Rich-M

I have never heard of any compatibility issues with Vista and NOd32 but Kaspersky is an excellent product also. My only issues with it are an endless scan, and a bit more system drag, but still not much.


----------



## cynosure1023

see the thing is that you have to choose a software through which comp become should not become slow, as Kaspersky 2009 doesn't consume much resources.


----------



## infomagick

Rich-M said:


> I have never heard of any compatibility issues with Vista and NOd32...


I think you are right about that. What I'm seeing now is that versions above 2.7 are being confirmed as being compatible and running well. I don't remember now where I saw this, why I had that impression, and feel now that I shouldn't have posted it, my apologies. It really didn't make sense to me, from the beginning, for Smart Security to be running well and NOD32 V3 to be having problems.


----------



## Rich-M

infomagick said:


> I think you are right about that. What I'm seeing now is that versions above 2.7 are being confirmed as being compatible and running well. I don't remember now where I saw this, why I had that impression, and feel now that I shouldn't have posted it, my apologies. It really didn't make sense to me, from the beginning, for Smart Security to be running well and NOD32 V3 to be having problems.


Hey happens to all of us....


----------



## robobobo

I've preety much decided
except for

MalwareBytes or Superantispyware paid versions

Which one would you choose and why?

Thanks


----------



## Rich-M

They are both good. Personally I prfer Superantispyware as it pulls spyware cookies as well as malware which Mbam does not do.


----------



## Bonnieclark

After reading this thread and others, I changed av, spyware program, and firewall. I removed Avast and Windows Defender, and shut off the Windows Firewall. In its place, I installed Avira, A-Squared, Threatfire, and Comodo Firewall.

What a nightmare!

For three days my computer would shut itself off every five minutes! The only way I could get it to reboot was to *unplug* it! Once I removed Avira, I could keep it running, but I still couldn't hook up to the internet! I decided to dump the new programs, and as I was uninstalling them, I found that another firewall and many spyware programs were also running. No wonder the computer was confused! I just gave up and reinstalled Avast, Windows Defender, and Windows Firewall. The computer works great now, and since I don't go to many sites, I should be safe.

The whole point of sharing this story is to send a warning to other novices like me...

Don't download everything you hear about and try to run it! Especially at the same time!


----------



## tomdkat

Bonnieclark said:


> For three days my computer would shut itself off every five minutes! The only way I could get it to reboot was to *unplug* it! Once I removed Avira, I could keep it running, but I still couldn't hook up to the internet! I decided to dump the new programs, *and as I was uninstalling them, I found that another firewall and many spyware programs were also running.* No wonder the computer was confused! I just gave up and reinstalled Avast, Windows Defender, and Windows Firewall. The computer works great now, and since I don't go to many sites, I should be safe.


Doesn't the part in bold imply Avast!, Windows Defender, and the Windows Firewall didn't protect you from that malware either?

Peace...


----------



## tomdkat

Cookiegal said:


> I would recommend a third party firewall unless you're behind a router.


I'm starting to wonder about the "implicit firewalling" routers are assumed to provide. You can read about my experience here.

Peace...


----------



## Bonnieclark

tomdkat...
Sorry... I didn't explain my situation correctly. What I found was programs that I had downloaded and started running, then forgot about. Not malware. Programs like ZoneAlarm, Spyware Blaster, A-squared, AVG Antispyware, etc. Unfortunately, they were ALL running along with Avira, Threatfire, and Comodo Firewall. Too much...


----------



## tomdkat

Gotcha. 

Peace...


----------



## moehunter

We have been running Kaspersky Internet Security on our new windows Vista Based system for 9 months now and have never felt more secure.
An excellent product with NO issues.
Not having to worry about what's in our Teenagers downloads is worth so much . . . 
Thank you too all "Teck Support Guy" members who steared me towards this awesome softwear.
Moe


----------



## robobobo

Which do you think is best.,

I have found that with malware bytes it can use up alot of resources sometimes and then other times its fine.......it shoots up and nearly uses all my cpu and then after a few mins it goes down again

Does superantispyware have similar effects?

Thanks


----------



## Blackmirror

Hello
If you empty your temp files first before using Malwarebytes
I use ATF cleaner
The scan will be quicker
The only time i have noticed a peak is during memory scanning 
Very briefly

Try both programs 
The one difference you will find is SAS scans for cookies and flags them as threats
Malwarebytes does not

Cookies can be cleaned.with ATF


----------



## robobobo

ok so everyone

Which would you vote for

Malware Bytes anti malware or Superantispyware (pro)

Thanks


----------



## Rich-M

1 vote for Superantispyware


----------



## infomagick

I'm not eligible to vote because I haven't tried Malware Bytes but, SUPERAntiSpyware Professional (Lifetime Subscription) is still running very nicely here (on Vista Home Premium). 

On a related note, I created a reset point, backed up the registry, took a deep breath and ran CCleaner on my Vista system for the first time. I seem to have come out it unscathed (so far). It took 893 megs of "junk" off of my relatively new (2 months) computer - impressive.


----------



## tomdkat

I vote for both. :up:

Peace...


----------



## infomagick

tomdkat said:


> i vote for both. :up:
> 
> Peace...


That sounds fair.


----------



## chiliwormeater45

AVG is free, and is great for a lot of users. I've never really liked it because it was very interrupting when doing daily updates and virus scan. It's great for a lot of users, never really was good enough for me though.

I use panda antivirus which includes total scan pro.  I get Norton for free from my ISP but it uses a lot of resources and I find it isn't the greatest.


----------



## ktadie

wow.. 12 pages of different answers and opinions on the best Anti virus/spy ware and so on, programs..

Someone should make a sticky post, with a huge poll with all the AV programs and then people can vote. The same with spyware/maleware programs and so on.


----------



## moehunter

chiliwormeater45 Kind-da hit it on the head . . . 
Everyone is different & such have different computing needs, requiring different levels of protection throughout their computing lifetime.
We had AVG FREE installed for a while, being a light non taxing prog. on our system all was good untill the kids hit 13 - 15 where their computing & surfing habits became more & more risky, after downloading most of the latest Trojans . . .We with the groups help upgraded to Kaspersky and all has been good since.
Moe


----------



## TechOutsider

Norton actually is quite lean.

http://nortontoday.symantec.com/features/detours/fastfacts/index.php?ID=mc27832039204726477

If you get a Norton 2008 product you can upgrade free to their 2009 products. For the 2009 lineup, Symantec's goal is to create the "fastest security product in the world, hands down. (Rowan Trollope)

The Norton 2009 products, for starters, uses about 100 mb is disk space. Also, it creates a trusted database of files, processes, and programs, allowing it to reduce redundancies. Their goal is to create a "zero impact security product"

About the 2008 line, it's great. It runs silently in the background and even on my 4 yr. old computer, there is no impact at all when surfing the web, gaming, even processor intensive tasks, such as converting music and videos.


----------



## robobobo

Has Norton really gotten that much better ( according to their site ) that its even better than the likes of kaspersky?

Norton Or Kaspersky? Which one?


----------



## Rich-M

Please....Kaspersky!


----------



## moehunter

If you were doing a lot of downloading !!!!
or visting some skanky sites I would go with Kaspersky,
I Have found your compleate protection from the Nasties is much more advanced with Kaspersky but its alot of work to be that well protected & still be able to move around freely & not have a Hog of an app...most ppl just want to beleave their protected with out all the hastle
My 2 cents.
Moe


----------



## chiliwormeater45

robobobo said:


> Norton Or Kaspersky? Which one?


I would probably go with Kaspersky. No matter how much Symnantec says, that there no products are faster, they got a long history of software that really hammers the computer in all sorts of ways. So I don't believe it at all.

I used to use AVG, and I got a lot of trojans so it clearly wasn't good enough for me. I haven't had any viruses in awhile, but I need a lot of protection. I play lots of online games, run IM and run several versions of Apache on my computer, which makes it more likely I could get a virus of some sort.

I visit a lot of web sites, and download all sorts of things. I do run them through two/three virus scanners though.  Norton does a really good job with protection but it is a nuisance because it uses of a lot of resources, and will slow down computers a lot.


----------



## robobobo

So really norton is ok but lets itself down by being quite slow on a system where as kaspersky is equally as good if not better with out being a drag on the pc?


----------



## chiliwormeater45

I find norton does a good job, until it slows down the system. I've never used kaspersky before, I'm only speaking based on what I've heard from people in my family, that have used it. I've never used kaspersky, because I am quite happy with TotalScan pro.


----------



## Rich-M

Want the least amount of system drag, fastest scan in the industry and total protection from spyware and virus, it's neither of those:
www.eset.com for Nod32.


----------



## jsparky77

Norton has good protection from everything although i find kaspersky has a better realtime than most other products. I would stick to kaspersky because i dont trust symantec when they say they have fastest, leanest antiviruses ever.

If i had to renew today, i would be looking either at kaspersky or nod32 but id be pretty sure id go for kaspersky.


----------



## TechOutsider

I would go with Norton. Even on my P4 computer there is 0 impact. Yeah and you get a free upgrade to their 2009 product line when its released. It's in the beta stage now.

Norton. Protection with no side effects.


----------



## TechOutsider

Fast Facts: http://nortontoday.symantec.com/features/detours/fastfacts/index.php?ID=mc27832111204726103

Independent testing: http://www.passmark.com/ftp/antivirus-performance-testing-ed3.pdf

As for Kaspersky, scans take a year and then a day. As for Norton 2009, their goal is to create the "fastest security product in the world, hands down."

15 minute updates.
Improved Heuristics. 
1 minute install, no reboot.
etc.


----------



## piano9playa5

Avira, Avast!, and AVG are all good.


----------



## Rich-M

piano9playa5 said:


> Avira, Avast!, and AVG are all good.


That is true if your philosophy is bring in whatever wants to enter and then attack it if a virus or Trojan. A "good" antivirus repels spyware and virus at the gate today and never lets them in at all.


----------



## chiliwormeater45

Yes, AVG doesn't block viruses that are trying to get in. Any good anti-virus should block viruses before they get on the system.


----------



## chipz

what is the difference between NOD32 OEM vs Retail other than $10???

Can I save the $10 and install it on my Dell Laptop? Or do I have to go with the retail version?

Sorry if it's a lame quesion..


----------



## Rich-M

chipz said:


> what is the difference between NOD32 OEM vs Retail other than $10???
> 
> Can I save the $10 and install it on my Dell Laptop? Or do I have to go with the retail version?
> 
> Sorry if it's a lame quesion..


Not lame at all, there is no difference at all except maybe tech support availability which I doubt, but don't know the answer to. Buy the oem.


----------



## chipz

Thanks Rich-M.. So, the next question would be.. if it were a tossup, would you go for Kapersky or this one? Kapersky found, as I stated in another post, something that others have not found.. but have not tried the one you have recommeded as a trial.

BTW, if you have not seen that post.. here is what Kapersky found.. and when I tried a search on Kapersky's website.. it found no hits on this "worm?" Do you know anything about it?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
KASPERSKY ONLINE SCANNER 7 REPORT
Saturday, August 2, 2008
Operating System: Microsoft Windows XP Professional Service Pack 2 (build 2600)
Kaspersky Online Scanner 7 version: 7.0.25.0
Program database last update: Saturday, August 02, 2008 17:10:12
Records in database: 1044946
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scan settings:
Scan using the following database: extended
Scan archives: yes
Scan mail databases: yes
Scan area - My Computer:
C:\
D:\
Scan statistics:
Files scanned: 51642
Threat name: 1
Infected objects: 1
Suspicious objects: 0
Duration of the scan: 01:12:04

File name / Threat name / Threats count
C:\WINDOWS\system32\COMDLG32.OCX Infected: HackTool.Win32.VB.yl 1
The selected area was scanned.


----------



## Rich-M

chipz said:


> Thanks Rich-M.. So, the next question would be.. if it were a tossup, would you go for Kapersky or this one? Kapersky found, as I stated in another post, something that others have not found.. but have not tried the one you have recommeded as a trial.
> 
> BTW, if you have not seen that post.. here is what Kapersky found.. and when I tried a search on Kapersky's website.. it found no hits on this "worm?" Do you know anything about it?
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> KASPERSKY ONLINE SCANNER 7 REPORT
> Saturday, August 2, 2008
> Operating System: Microsoft Windows XP Professional Service Pack 2 (build 2600)
> Kaspersky Online Scanner 7 version: 7.0.25.0
> Program database last update: Saturday, August 02, 2008 17:10:12
> Records in database: 1044946
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Scan settings:
> Scan using the following database: extended
> Scan archives: yes
> Scan mail databases: yes
> Scan area - My Computer:
> C:\
> D:\
> Scan statistics:
> Files scanned: 51642
> Threat name: 1
> Infected objects: 1
> Suspicious objects: 0
> Duration of the scan: 01:12:04
> 
> File name / Threat name / Threats count
> C:\WINDOWS\system32\COMDLG32.OCX Infected: HackTool.Win32.VB.yl 1
> The selected area was scanned.


Kaspersky is a great antivirus and I have run tests on it several times. But for my own use I have used Nod32 for almost 8 years and would not dream of switching.


----------



## robobobo

Oh im very confused now after all this!!!

It seems norton really has taken a step up and it appears kasperskys scan times are poor and nod32 also seems to be appealing to me.!!


----------



## TechOutsider

Norton is not as bad as the hype. I run Norton on my P4, Core duo, and a Pentium 3 computer. I got all the licenses for 20 bucks, and it runs great on each. Oh, and you get a free upgrade to their 2009 products, which are to be the fastest security product in the world, hands down. 

Kapersky scans are slow. It actually scans the slowest among Antivirus products. Nod32 is somewhat technical. Norton seems just right for you. It automatically makes all the security decisions for you, simplifying your life. 

I have tried out the Norton 2009 product betas. It really lives up to the expectations. Merits:

1 minute install, no reboot
15 minute updates with enhanced heruistics
Silent mode: does not interuppt you when playing games, presentations, etc.
100 mb big install
Powerful features, including phising protection.
2-way firewall
Live Update removed

That being said, Norton 2008 products are still fanastic.


----------



## robobobo

I must say that since i was updated to norton 08 it does seem to be working quicker at startup and scanning than it used to be....

Is norton 09 set to be even better.......sounds like it is but how do we know it will be?

and you do get upgraded to 09 for free do you when its realised ( approx when do you think )?


----------



## moehunter

Who sits & watches etc. . . as too how long a anti virus app takes to compleate a check cycle.
Running time would be the LAST item on my list when choosing a anti virus app.
I run Kaspersky & bought it suit my advanced anti virus protection requirement, trojans don't even get close any more.

Since the install I have had 3 detections, 2 Riskware & 1 Adware, all of which were my falt for not including the programs in which the former were inbeded in. 
Oh yea, like most ppl I know my system does all checks while i'm a sleep
Tired old Moe


----------



## jsparky77

TechOutsider said:


> Norton is not as bad as the hype. I run Norton on my P4, Core duo, and a Pentium 3 computer. I got all the licenses for 20 bucks, and it runs great on each. Oh, and you get a free upgrade to their 2009 products, which are to be the fastest security product in the world, hands down.


1. Norton is as bad as the hype.
2. I really doubt that they can turn from being the slowest av to the fastest.



TechOutsider said:


> Kapersky scans are slow. It actually scans the slowest among Antivirus products. Nod32 is somewhat technical. Norton seems just right for you. It automatically makes all the security decisions for you, simplifying your life.


3. Kaspersky scans are second slowest to norton.
4. Nod32 is as technical as kaspersky and norton.
5. those automatic desicions my not suit you so they could be of absolutely no use.



TechOutsider said:


> I have tried out the Norton 2009 product betas. It really lives up to the expectations. Merits:
> 
> 1 minute install, no reboot
> 15 minute updates with enhanced heruistics
> Silent mode: does not interuppt you when playing games, presentations, etc.
> 100 mb big install
> Powerful features, including phising protection.
> 2-way firewall
> Live Update removed
> 
> That being said, Norton 2008 products are still fanastic.


6. Kaspersky has less than 5 minute updates so it thrashes nortons 15 mins. and im not sure about nod32's.
7. IMHO Kaspersky's heuristics are as good as they get.
8. Kaspersky's instal is less than 35mb, (for me).
9. Nortons features are too powerful and take too much of an effect on the system.
10. Most security suites have phishing protection so it is no big feature.
11. Norton 2008 would be good if they were lighter.

All said, i would rate norton 4/10 and kaspersky 8/10 and Nod32 8/10


----------



## robobobo

Thats a very convincing post jsparky77

But where does this site get its facts from?
They cant just make them up ...



TechOutsider said:


> Independent testing: http://www.passmark.com/ftp/antivirus-performance-testing-ed3.pdf


----------



## TechOutsider

Yes but you all do not have the first hand experience that only I can provide, out of the active ppls in this forum. 

Norton is light without sacrificing system performance. I can do benchmarks on my p3 computer with and w/o Norton to show. As for the 5 minute updates, I have found no supporting evidence. Those numbers are probably true during massive virus breakouts...but....


----------



## TechOutsider

Additionally jsparky, how can you rate Norton if you have never tried it and have no intentions to try it? 

Those claims are completely unsubstantiated.


----------



## robobobo

I myself actually have norton and have first hand experiance with it, that is what made me start this thread as it was being a drag on my system, forever to start up and scan

It has let several viruses into my computer but wouldnt show them in a scan or anything, about a week or 2 later it discovered it and told me i had one,
Then it decided to do something about it


----------



## TechOutsider

the site goes to the store and buys av software. simple


----------



## Blackmirror

I think you are missing a very important point
What works for one person may not necessarily work for another
Thats why its important to *try *any AV you are thinking about buying..

Personally i use free programs .....


----------



## Rich-M

TechOutsider said:


> Yes but you all do not have the first hand experience that only I can provide, out of the active ppls in this forum.
> 
> Norton is light without sacrificing system performance. I can do benchmarks on my p3 computer with and w/o Norton to show. As for the 5 minute updates, I have found no supporting evidence. Those numbers are probably true during massive virus breakouts...but....


Pretty self important my friend here aren't you now. Well personally I don't see where you experience is that valuable, I haven't a clue what it is. I have been testing antivirus programs for several major forums for over 10 years and Norton would be my last choice of programs to use. We always rate antivirus first for it ability to detect and remove virus, and Norton has never been even close to the top in that. Beyond that it seems to almost never have the ability to clean a file only quarantine what it finds.

Second test it as software because that includes how it functions within a system and there is where all of Norton "eye candy" produces incredible system drag. Removing Norton Internet Security has actually provided huge system boosts on most systems I have uninstalled it from.


----------



## Cookiegal

Let's just share personal experiences and opinions without fluffing feathers and turning this into a bickering match please.

I know it can be done.


----------



## TechOutsider

Above all, benchmarks and independent testing, seeing and first-hand experience is believing. 10 years? That's a long time back...Symantec's 2007+ products have really redefined their products. Yeah, and what year of NIS did you remove? Eye candy? More like intuitive. System drag? Norton's UI launches 48% faster than the competition's average time. Yeah and it scans 83% faster. Kaspersky ranked last in scan speed.

Ok, why not we all try out Kaspersky, NOD32, and Norton. Each have free trials. Then we can share our experiences, not _voice_ the bias on the web.

References: Personal Experience, Passmark.org, AV-test.org, Sunbelt

AV-test.org:

According to AV-test.org...Kaspersky got a B and a C for detection of malware and adware, respectivly, on demand . Gosh, and it got a C for # of FP/ 100,000 files . Scan speed was a D.. . Finally, it got a B for removal of malware. Let's face it, if it can't even detect many malware samples, gives you FPs, then whats the point of a good removal rate? Useless.

NOD32...gets Bs for detection of malware and adware . Hehe. And a B for removal. So much for detection, much less removal, or malware. 
Symantec...gets a B and an A for detection of malware adware. And an A for scan speed. Yeah and an A for removal. NOD32 and Kaspersky pale in comparision for Symantec (Norton). 
If you can't detect a vast majority of malware samples ...heh...an high removal rate is useless. Symantec ranks highest among the tested AV programs.


----------



## TechOutsider

I wish to see CURRENT and SOLID evidence, not biased claims based on Symantec's products from many years ago. Also, first hand experience would be nice.


----------



## TechOutsider

I don't believe that you have to pay for NIS again robobobo. Check their site for upgrade instructions.


----------



## TechOutsider

Hey jsparky77, what happened to the fast response times? 

No pun intended.


----------



## TechOutsider

Chipz:

Sorry for not getting to your question until now.



chipz said:


> Thanks Rich-M.. So, the next question would be.. if it were a tossup, would you go for Kapersky or this one? Kapersky found, as I stated in another post, something that others have not found.. but have not tried the one you have recommeded as a trial.
> 
> BTW, if you have not seen that post.. here is what Kapersky found.. and when I tried a search on Kapersky's website.. it found no hits on this "worm?" Do you know anything about it?
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> KASPERSKY ONLINE SCANNER 7 REPORT
> Saturday, August 2, 2008
> Operating System: Microsoft Windows XP Professional Service Pack 2 (build 2600)
> Kaspersky Online Scanner 7 version: 7.0.25.0
> Program database last update: Saturday, August 02, 2008 17:10:12
> Records in database: 1044946
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Scan settings:
> Scan using the following database: extended
> Scan archives: yes
> Scan mail databases: yes
> Scan area - My Computer:
> C:\
> D:\
> Scan statistics:
> Files scanned: 51642
> Threat name: 1
> Infected objects: 1
> Suspicious objects: 0
> Duration of the scan: 01:12:04
> 
> File name / Threat name / Threats count
> C:\WINDOWS\system32\COMDLG32.OCX Infected: HackTool.Win32.VB.yl 1
> The selected area was scanned.


Kaspersky just scans the quarentine folder of your current AV and reports the infection using your AV's naming conventions, resulting in no hits on their site.  another cheap marketing scheme.


----------



## TechOutsider

For the less technical minded, Kaspersky fails. Along with NOD32. 

A quarantine folder holds malware found on your system, in case they were wrongly classified as malware and need to be restored.


----------



## TechOutsider

Here are attachments of screenshots of Norton 360 on my computer.

Specs: 120gb 5400rpm hard drive
1.73 ghz core duo


----------



## TechOutsider

Yeah and Windows Vista. 

2.5 mb memory usage idle....8.6 doing a scan.

THIS IS THE KIND OF SUPPORT NEEDED FOR ANYONE TO MAKE AN INFORMED DECISION. Or, the easy way: renew your Norton Internet Security subscription.


----------



## robobobo

Tech outsider,

They are convincing screenshots but may i ask how much ram your pc has?
When i do a scan with Norton my CPU Usage jumps right up to nearly 100% at times but mainly high 80-90

and at idle its using 11.5mb and then still in idle it does a quick scan in backround as it always does it shoots right up nearly 30 mb!

But i noticed from your pics that you only have 1 ccsvchst.exe running where as i have two of them....


----------



## Blackmirror

TechOutsider said:


> Chipz:
> 
> Sorry for not getting to your question until now.
> 
> *Kaspersky just scans the quarentine folder of your current AV *and reports the infection using your AV's naming conventions, resulting in no hits on their site.  another cheap marketing scheme.


That is untrue 
The ks online scan in one of the most thorough around and is used by Malware experts to see whats still lurking 
Please get your facts right


----------



## jsparky77

robobobo said:


> Thats a very convincing post jsparky77
> 
> But where does this site get its facts from?
> They cant just make them up ...


Note that this site does not test detection rates...



TechOutsider said:


> Yes but you all do not have the first hand experience that only I can provide, out of the active ppls in this forum.
> 
> Norton is light without sacrificing system performance. I can do benchmarks on my p3 computer with and w/o Norton to show. As for the 5 minute updates, I have found no supporting evidence. Those numbers are probably true during massive virus breakouts...but....


Updating shouldnt take more than 5 minutes because all you are doing, is downnloading database files of small size. To me, 15 minutes is outrageous.



TechOutsider said:


> Additionally jsparky, how can you rate Norton if you have never tried it and have no intentions to try it?
> 
> Those claims are completely unsubstantiated.


I HAVE tried norton 2008 and previous versions but not norton 2009. And i have no intentions of trying norton 2009



TechOutsider said:


> Chipz:
> 
> Sorry for not getting to your question until now.
> 
> Kaspersky just scans the quarentine folder of your current AV and reports the infection using your AV's naming conventions, resulting in no hits on their site.  another cheap marketing scheme.


As you can see if you scroll up, it is not merely in a quarantine folder but in the SYSTEM32 FOLDER!!! How did you read that to be in a quarantine folder??!!


----------



## jsparky77

chipz said:


> Thanks Rich-M.. So, the next question would be.. if it were a tossup, would you go for Kapersky or this one? Kapersky found, as I stated in another post, something that others have not found.. but have not tried the one you have recommeded as a trial.
> 
> BTW, if you have not seen that post.. here is what Kapersky found.. and when I tried a search on Kapersky's website.. it found no hits on this "worm?" Do you know anything about it?
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> KASPERSKY ONLINE SCANNER 7 REPORT
> Saturday, August 2, 2008
> Operating System: Microsoft Windows XP Professional Service Pack 2 (build 2600)
> Kaspersky Online Scanner 7 version: 7.0.25.0
> Program database last update: Saturday, August 02, 2008 17:10:12
> Records in database: 1044946
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Scan settings:
> Scan using the following database: extended
> Scan archives: yes
> Scan mail databases: yes
> Scan area - My Computer:
> C:\
> D:\
> Scan statistics:
> Files scanned: 51642
> Threat name: 1
> Infected objects: 1
> Suspicious objects: 0
> Duration of the scan: 01:12:04
> 
> File name / Threat name / Threats count
> C:\WINDOWS\system32\COMDLG32.OCX Infected: HackTool.Win32.VB.yl 1
> The selected area was scanned.


I would recommend running a nod32 online scan and see if it picks it up. i say this because the nod32 online scan also lets you remove it at the end of it. I would do this ASAP. If nod32 doesn't fix this, please start a new thread in the malware removal and hjt logs forum.

p.s. sorry for the late reply


----------



## TechOutsider

Blackmirror said:


> That is untrue
> The ks online scan in one of the most thorough around and is used by Malware experts to see whats still lurking
> Please get your facts right


 Please, I see no evidence to suggest that. Please stop contridicting me with your personal bias and opionions and gimme the dang FACTS and evidence that actually fit, like mine. 


robobobo said:


> Tech outsider,
> 
> They are convincing screenshots but may i ask how much ram your pc has?
> When i do a scan with Norton my CPU Usage jumps right up to nearly 100% at times but mainly high 80-90
> 
> and at idle its using 11.5mb and then still in idle it does a quick scan in backround as it always does it shoots right up nearly 30 mb!
> 
> But i noticed from your pics that you only have 1 ccsvchst.exe running where as i have two of them....


 2007 NIS? Well, the 2008 line vastly improves on te 2007 architecture. With the 2007 products, my performance was impacted slightly during scans and updates, but still acceptable. When I upgraded to N360 version 2.0, which uses the 2008 engine, performance hits were unnoticable. 
Yes and I have 2gb on that paticular computer.



jsparky77 said:


> I would recommend running a nod32 online scan and see if it picks it up. i say this because the nod32 online scan also lets you remove it at the end of it. I would do this ASAP. If nod32 doesn't fix this, please start a new thread in the malware removal and hjt logs forum.
> 
> p.s. sorry for the late reply


 Notice that Norton ranks consistanly in the top, ahead of Kaspersky in that paticular test(Passmark.org). Nod32 was not available for comparison at the time. L. Bring it ON!
Also notice that I cited results from AV-test.org, an independent AV testing company. Experts and amatures all over the web trust AV-test. If you can't trust them, who can you trust? Here is an rundown of the results:


Blackmirror said:


> I think you are missing a very important point
> What works for one person may not necessarily work for another
> Thats why its important to *try *any AV you are thinking about buying..
> 
> Personally i use free programs .....


 Do you not trust my personal experience and Passmark.org and Av-test.org? Along with millions of others of satified Symantec Norton users?


TechOutsider said:


> According to AV-test.org...Kaspersky got a B and a C for detection of malware and adware, respectivly, on demand . Gosh, and it got a C for # of FP/ 100,000 files
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> . Scan speed was a D..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> . Finally, it got a B for removal of malware. Let's face it, if it can't even detect many malware samples, gives you FPs, then whats the point of a good removal rate? Useless.
> NOD32...gets Bs for detection of malware and adware
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> . Hehe. And a B for removal. So much for detection, much less removal, or malware.
> Symantec...gets a B and an A for detection of malware adware. And an A for scan speed. Yeah and an A for removal. NOD32 and Kaspersky pale in comparision for Symantec (Norton).
> If you can't detect a vast majority of malware samples ...heh...an high removal rate is useless. Symantec ranks highest among the tested AV programs.


 I don't see how an B and C student beats a person consistantly recieving As and Bs. 
In your face. 
Peace.


----------



## TechOutsider

http://www.sunbelt-software.com/ihs/alex/Results_2D2008m3b_US.htm

Read this before blabbering out your thoughts and bias. Maybe that will shut you up


----------



## Blackmirror

I think you should get your facts right 
Kaspersky online scan is used by the Malware experts quite extensively
Its an online scanner it doesn't remove anything...

Have a look in the security section 

you need a link ?? or can you find your own way there ??


----------



## Cookiegal

TechOutsider,

You have gone beyond being civil here in this discussion. There is no need to mock others and everyone is entitled to their opinion, no matter what proof you put forward.

I would not base a judgement on one study and even at that, the study may (and I stress may) be flawed.

Check out this discussion at Wilder's:

http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=198096&page=3

I've given you a 48 hour temporary ban to cool down and after that, if you can't join in discussions without being rude and condescending, then your account will be banned permanently without further notice.


----------



## wampyer

I love using Eset smart security. It just stays in the background and does its job. It is low on resources and it does not show you the nagging update bar. And i haven't had a single viral problem since i started using it.


----------



## Rolin09

Personally, I believe that a ban on TechOutsider was well deserved. However, if you check his/her  facts, they all check out. 

On the other hand, I do not see facts, but rather opinion. Opinion is invaluable but so are facts. 

Kaspersky and Nod :/according to the AV-test.org publication, they ranked consistently in the middle of the pack. And hey, cookiegal, that fourm was very informative.


----------



## Blackmirror

You can state your opinion without being rude. its good manners


----------



## robobobo

I think i have a reasonable answer for myself anyway,

I shall try a 30 day trial with Kaspersky, Nod 32 and then Norton 09 (it should be out by then)
and decide for myself which one is best for me


----------



## Blackmirror

Thats a good idea
Thats what i would do


----------



## Rolin09

robobobo said:


> Hi Guys,
> 
> I currently use Norton Internet Security and have a few days remaining on the subscription,.
> 
> What i would like to know is it worth paying again for it or what are my free alternatives?
> 
> I have still managed to get a few viruses even with this and have removed several manually and sometimes norton would pick them up eventually but not always and normally after i had them,
> 
> So what would be best free anti-virus softwares for windows xp ?
> 
> Also do they all have realtime protection like norton or have you got to do a scan to discover if you have virus and also do they cover spyware malware etc.......
> 
> More than likely i would need more than one software?
> 
> So im open to all your suggestions on what you think would be the best combination for my pc
> 
> Many Thanks Guys
> 
> Robobobo


It seems that TechOutsider has been banned, and I'm here to .. er .. continue his legacy...

Hey giving each AV a test run is a great idea. Right now Norton Internet security is in the Beta stage. So is Norton Antivirus, an "lite" version of NIS. The betas will stop functioning on Sept. 23, so you have over a month to try it out. By Late Sept or Oct. the final version should be released
Also, japasky, I believe that you have a misleading post. You misinterpreted TechOutsider's comment about 15 minute updates. No, updates do not take 15 minutes to install, but rather there is a definite update every 15 minutes. More often during massive breakouts. . 
There are free alterntives, such as Avast, which has real-time protection, but I have found resource consumption to be rather high. 
Feel free to contridict me cause I'm armed with the facts .


----------



## Cookiegal

Well Rolin09, err...TechOutsider, since you signed up with another account during a temporary ban, both accounts are now banned permanently.


----------



## jsparky77

As i did not beleive those tests before, i went and found some of my own using a google search:
http://www.av-comparatives.org/seiten/ergebnisse_2008_02.php
http://www.av-comparatives.org/seiten/ergebnisse_2008_05.php
http://www.consumersearch.com/www/software/antivirus-software/
http://www.pcpro.co.uk/shopper/labs/230/anti-virus-software/products.html
http://www.pcworld.com/article/130869/top_antivirus_performers.html
http://reviews.cnet.com/4504-3513_7...=32955418&id=32887573&id=32879003&id=32878997
http://www.pcworld.com/article/124475/top_antivirus_software.html

From these ones, nod32 and kaspersky rank at the top of the pack with norton in the middle


----------



## Rich-M

jsparky77 said:


> As i did not beleive those tests before, i went and found some of my own using a google search:
> http://www.av-comparatives.org/seiten/ergebnisse_2008_02.php
> http://www.av-comparatives.org/seiten/ergebnisse_2008_05.php
> http://www.consumersearch.com/www/software/antivirus-software/
> http://www.pcpro.co.uk/shopper/labs/230/anti-virus-software/products.html
> http://www.pcworld.com/article/130869/top_antivirus_performers.html
> http://reviews.cnet.com/4504-3513_7...=32955418&id=32887573&id=32879003&id=32878997
> http://www.pcworld.com/article/124475/top_antivirus_software.html
> 
> From these ones, nod32 and kaspersky rank at the top of the pack with norton in the middle


First 2 don't work incidentally....Kaspersky, Bit defender and Nod 32 have been at the top for years with most independent testers. If you look at heuristics, that is where they excel and blow away Norton and MacAfee in comparison and it is easy to find documentation on that but like everything else antivirus programs are a personal choice and everyone's experience is different.


----------



## gatorlandkali

I have been using Avira AntiVir for quite some time and I don't have any problems so far. Few of antivirs that I bump into are Kaspersky, BitDefender, McAfee, Panda Antivirus 2007 - that I am still tweaking this if this is better others have mentioned it, and F-PROT Antivirus. among the 5, I choose Avira. If by any chance you bought any brand of NAVs , please send return it to the store (if you can) - you get more problems ahead.


----------



## Blackmirror

I think that an Antivirus should suit you
If you are a careful www user
Dont download from p2ps
Have spyware protection as well 
Why pay ??

The only time i have been infected when was a live link was posted on a forum and i clicked it not realising my AV had been turned off 

My mistake
I should have known better i was tweaking in msconfig


----------



## jsparky77

Rich-M said:


> First 2 don't work incidentally....Kaspersky, Bit defender and Nod 32 have been at the top for years with most independent testers. If you look at heuristics, that is where they excel and blow away Norton and MacAfee in comparison and it is easy to find documentation on that but like everything else antivirus programs are a personal choice and everyone's experience is different.


Oh, sorry about that, i didn't realise they didnt let you link to that page. to get there, press the link. when it loads, on the side menu click 'comparitives'. see the latest tests.


----------



## infomagick

In the spirit of this thread (helping each other out), I found that this site had some interesting, albeit subjective, opinions and mini-reviews. I hope that it may be of some use.


----------



## Blackmirror

Thats a good read but he does contradict himself


> With every new generation of malware, there will be a new generation of software to combat it, and in my own tests, there are none better than SuperAntiSpyware. How can I be so confident? Because to save you the trouble, I went hunting around the seedier side of Hong Kong websites, picking up as many infections as I could find in a 30 minute surfing session, and then seeing how todays anti-malware software coped, and without a doubt SuperAntiSpyware was the best.
> I managed to acquire nearly 200 nasties, and SuperAntiSpyware found *176* of them.


Then in the next breath


> The runner up in my test was MalwareBytes Anti-Malware, which detected 104 threats, though the time taken to detect them was a little longer than SAS. Having said that, scanning again after I let SAS clean up my system,* Malwarebytes offering still found an additional 28 threats that SAS had failed to detect*. Most of these were Trojans, which suggests the two are aimed at slightly different threats. Anti-malware happily removed these with no troubles at all.
> 104 threats detected


So how he can say SAS came out top eludes my brain

Im thinking he counted tracking cookies as well

SAS removes them 
Malwarebytes doesnt

SAS counts them as a threat 
you dont need a spyware program to remove cookies


----------



## Rich-M

> So how he can say SAS came out top eludes my brain
> 
> Im thinking he counted tracking cookies as well
> 
> SAS removes them
> Malwarebytes doesnt
> 
> SAS counts them as a threat
> you dont need a spyware program to remove cookies


Ah great because they are a threat. Malwarebytes looks like a work in progress, beta software and in my experience, not counting spyware cookies, Sas will outperform it every time I ran tests utilizing both.


----------



## Philgreen29

Hi all,
I guess the only answers in this thread are that there are are more opinions than combinations of various forms anti-crapware available. Everyone seems to have their own opinion on what is best, but at the end of the day their opinion is good only for them.

Robobo's initial post has certainly put the cat amongst the pidgeons but I would say that it is all about making some compromise between paying for continual license renewals, detection rates, use of system resources and user friendliness... and that just scratches the surface.

I will offer my opinion here (feel free to ignore it but it works for me) After getting myself caught out I asked the guy in the forum who helped me (Essexboy) for a recommend to stop it happening again. He suggested this for me, it worked, I'm happy.

I trialled Avast, I find the scans slow, and can be frustrating especially if you leave it overnight only for it to stop at an infection 5 minutes after you left it. For me though, ultimately its kept my system working despite my questionable P2P usage. I've now upgraded to the pay version, its a one-off payment for something like 10years of cover - a BIG plus in my opinion.

For Anti-Spyware he recommended SUPERAntispyware and I wouldn't hesitate in backing up his recommendation, it worked fantastically with Avast. When carrying out a SAS quickscan Avast would butt in if SAS come across a virus/trojan that had made it onto my system (yes I know crap should never have been there in the first place, although in defence I may have been on Avast trial at the time?) Its quick scan is exactly that and paired with Avast it detects viruses too! I love it! And for a measley $19.99 for a lifetime SAS license I am certainly prepared to upgrade to the full version when I get around to it.

Spyware Blaster was also recommended, I don't fully understand what it adds the the picture but sod it, its free, and I do know it stops my homepage being hijacked.

Finally (I can't remember if this was a recommendation from my saviour but...) I use PC Tools Firewall, its fairly easy to use and once its been running a while the annoying pop-ups ease off. I don't know how it rates in comparison and I'm considering trialling something else, it does the job for the time being.

I'm not niave enough to think that this is gonna make my system invulnerable, I know that will never happen. I get the odd bit of malicious software (probably through my own mistakes more than any fault of the software I chose to protect myself with) and I sometimes spend a bit of time getting rid of the infections that get through. For me though this is the compromise between paying the corprate giants of Symantec, Kaspersky Nod etc. (every year!) and getting the level of protecion I want against ease of use and light on system resources.

Robobo if you haven't been driven insane by the constant contradicting opinions, know this. The right answer IS (NOT IN MY OPINION, BUT IN ACTUAL FACT) to trial combinations of whatever Anti-Spyware, Anti-Virus, Firewall and any other Anti-crap you think are right for you and your system. Whatever trials you do use try to make sure you're as covered as you can be throughout. There is no easy right answer, but I do agree with your reasons for leaving Norton. I did a similar thing, which caused me to get myself caught out, as mentioned above, so I feel for you.

When deciding on your protection I think there are some rules you need to stick to, (I'm no expert but this I'm sure about) 
1. Only use 1 AV product. 
2. AV are generally are pretty crap at Anti-Spyware so you will almost cetainly need a seperate Anti-Spyware.
3. (I believe) Windows Firewall does half a job well, but getting another Firewall to protect against outgoing traffic would be sensible. Note only Windows Firewall plus *1 firewall* of your choice.
4. Rich-M should be getting paid royalties for his enthusiasm for Nod32 lol (btw thats not a real criticism Nod apparently works very well for him!)

I hope my experience paired with the advice from Essexboys helps anyone who is reading this thread!

GOOD LUCK


----------



## Rich-M

Philgreen29 said:


> Hi all,
> I guess the only answers in this thread are that there are are more opinions than combinations of various forms anti-crapware available. Everyone seems to have their own opinion on what is best, but at the end of the day their opinion is good only for them.
> 
> Robobo's initial post has certainly put the cat amongst the pidgeons but I would say that it is all about making some compromise between paying for continual license renewals, detection rates, use of system resources and user friendliness... and that just scratches the surface.
> 
> I will offer my opinion here (feel free to ignore it but it works for me) After getting myself caught out I asked the guy in the forum who helped me (Essexboy) for a recommend to stop it happening again. He suggested this for me, it worked, I'm happy.
> 
> I trialled Avast, I find the scans slow, and can be frustrating especially if you leave it overnight only for it to stop at an infection 5 minutes after you left it. For me though, ultimately its kept my system working despite my questionable P2P usage. I've now upgraded to the pay version, its a one-off payment for something like 10years of cover - a BIG plus in my opinion.
> 
> For Anti-Spyware he recommended SUPERAntispyware and I wouldn't hesitate in backing up his recommendation, it worked fantastically with Avast. When carrying out a SAS quickscan Avast would butt in if SAS come across a virus/trojan that had made it onto my system (yes I know crap should never have been there in the first place, although in defence I may have been on Avast trial at the time?) Its quick scan is exactly that and paired with Avast it detects viruses too! I love it! And for a measley $19.99 for a lifetime SAS license I am certainly prepared to upgrade to the full version when I get around to it.
> 
> Spyware Blaster was also recommended, I don't fully understand what it adds the the picture but sod it, its free, and I do know it stops my homepage being hijacked.
> 
> Finally (I can't remember if this was a recommendation from my saviour but...) I use PC Tools Firewall, its fairly easy to use and once its been running a while the annoying pop-ups ease off. I don't know how it rates in comparison and I'm considering trialling something else, it does the job for the time being.
> 
> I'm not niave enough to think that this is gonna make my system invulnerable, I know that will never happen. I get the odd bit of malicious software (probably through my own mistakes more than any fault of the software I chose to protect myself with) and I sometimes spend a bit of time getting rid of the infections that get through. For me though this is the compromise between paying the corprate giants of Symantec, Kaspersky Nod etc. (every year!) and getting the level of protecion I want against ease of use and light on system resources.
> 
> Robobo if you haven't been driven insane by the constant contradicting opinions, know this. The right answer IS (NOT IN MY OPINION, BUT IN ACTUAL FACT) to trial combinations of whatever Anti-Spyware, Anti-Virus, Firewall and any other Anti-crap you think are right for you and your system. Whatever trials you do use try to make sure you're as covered as you can be throughout. There is no easy right answer, but I do agree with your reasons for leaving Norton. I did a similar thing, which caused me to get myself caught out, as mentioned above, so I feel for you.
> 
> When deciding on your protection I think there are some rules you need to stick to, (I'm no expert but this I'm sure about)
> 1. Only use 1 AV product.
> 2. AV are generally are pretty crap at Anti-Spyware so you will almost cetainly need a seperate Anti-Spyware.
> 3. (I believe) Windows Firewall does half a job well, but getting another Firewall to protect against outgoing traffic would be sensible. Note only Windows Firewall plus *1 firewall* of your choice.
> 4. Rich-M should be getting paid royalties for his enthusiasm for Nod32 lol (btw thats not a real criticism Nod apparently works very well for him!)
> 
> I hope my experience paired with the advice from Essexboys helps anyone who is reading this thread!
> 
> GOOD LUCK


Yeah you wish royalties...just remember one thing here as I agree with everything you say and that is the primary difference between NOd 32, Kaspersky and Bit Defender, which I believe makes it worth the yearly fee, is that it prevents you from getting infected as you cannot go to the site you are trying to and all the others, take you there and then try to remove the infection. This becomes particularly difficult if the product you are using such as Avast, Avg or Avira is weak at heuristics because a worm can slip through and is not visible until it opens...that could be too late in your system which is not possible with the other 3.


----------



## jsparky77

Philgreen29 said:


> When deciding on your protection I think there are some rules you need to stick to, (I'm no expert but this I'm sure about)
> 1. Only use 1 AV product.
> 2. AV are generally are pretty crap at Anti-Spyware so you will almost cetainly need a seperate Anti-Spyware.
> 3. (I believe) Windows Firewall does half a job well, but getting another Firewall to protect against outgoing traffic would be sensible. Note only Windows Firewall plus *1 firewall* of your choice.
> 4. Rich-M should be getting paid royalties for his enthusiasm for Nod32 lol (btw thats not a real criticism Nod apparently works very well for him!)


 Number 3: You should only use one firewall and Windows Firewall doesn't do anything but use up a bit more cpu and ram.

Otherwise i agree with rich-m and the difference between kaspersky, nod32 and bitdefender and avast is the realtime protection.

Otherwise all comments are good, but you could also try malwarebytes anti-malware.


----------



## robobobo

Well Guys it looks like i have enough to think about over the next 2 weeks till my norton subscription expires....

I think i will stick to my idea of trying a month trial of each and seeing which is best for me, and then ill make my final decision,,, along with super anti spyware pro........

Ill let you know in due course how its going with me,

And once again thanks for all your great advice 

Cheers,
Robobobo


----------

