Any opinions of BitDefender free?

[justicekeeper]

I was considering running the free version of BitDefender, any opinions if it's worth it. Thanks in advance for any replies.

[Capp]

Hey justicekeeper

I run bitdefender free as my backup scanner and I have had enjoyed having it. I would like to see the scanning speed improve personally. I run NOD as my primary so I'm used to having super fast scanning.

The detection rates are very good with bitdefender and it is relatively easy to use.

I recommend it :)

[Rasheed187]

I used it a year ago and it missed 3 trojans that KAV did detect, so I would stay away from it, it also doesn´t have realtime protection and the GUI is unhandy, so if you want a good free AV/AT I would recommend AntiVir. :)

[rdsu]

If you want a free AV to backup your main AV, use AntiVir...

[MikeyBikey]

Another vote for BitDefender free! The scanning speed is the worst I've seen; on my box a scan can take anything up to 2 hours (Make sure you turn off your resident AV!). What makes BD worth it is the detection, which I think is very,very good.

[Tinribs]

{QUOTE-> I used it a year ago and it missed 3 trojans that KAV did detect, so I would stay away from it, it also doesn´t have realtime protection and the GUI is unhandy, so if you want a good free AV/AT I would recommend AntiVir. :) <-QUOTE}

I think you'll find that many products miss malware that Kav (etc) detect, I also doubt that Antivir will be alot better. Another fact to bear in mind is that in the year since you used it last things have progressed.


:)
Kev

[Mele20]

I use BitDefender as my sole antivirus on my XP box and have done so for over a year. I think it is excellent. It scans FAST. NOD32 is MUCH MUCH slower in scanning. NOD32 takes forever and brings my fast 3.4 GHz, 2MB RAM box to its knees. Bit Defender is not nearly as fast as F-Prot but it is reasonably fast and quite snappy on right click demand scan, although again not nearly as fast as F-Prot, but much faster than NOD32 which has gone from being the lightest and fastest AV to one of the most bloated and slowest.

[Stan999]

{QUOTE-> I use BitDefender as my sole antivirus on my XP box and have done so for over a year. I think it is excellent. It scans FAST. NOD32 is MUCH MUCH slower in scanning. NOD32 takes forever and brings my fast 3.4 GHz, 2MB RAM box to its knees. Bit Defender is not nearly as fast as F-Prot but it is reasonably fast and quite snappy on right click demand scan, although again not nearly as fast as F-Prot, but much faster than NOD32 which has gone from being the lightest and fastest AV to one of the most bloated and slowest. <-QUOTE}

Hi Mele20,

When was the last time you used NOD32? NOD is still fast on my end.
It even runs good on an old PIII 500.:)

As with any AV YMMV with different platforms and loaded applications.

[rdsu]

I know that the detection rate of BitDefender is very good, but I don't like to have always running a service because BD requires it, and because the on-demand scanner takes a lot of time and resources...

That is why I prefer AntiVir... ;)

[Capp]

{QUOTE-> I use BitDefender as my sole antivirus on my XP box and have done so for over a year. I think it is excellent. It scans FAST. NOD32 is MUCH MUCH slower in scanning. NOD32 takes forever and brings my fast 3.4 GHz, 2MB RAM box to its knees. Bit Defender is not nearly as fast as F-Prot but it is reasonably fast and quite snappy on right click demand scan, although again not nearly as fast as F-Prot, but much faster than NOD32 which has gone from being the lightest and fastest AV to one of the most bloated and slowest. <-QUOTE}

I agree with Stan. I have NOD32 with the max settings and it scans my 80Gb hard drive in under 20 minutes. I only have 512Mb RAM and a 1.2GHz AMD Proc. I use Bitdefender as my backup scanner and it takes twice as long to scan the same thing as NOD does.

I think you might have something configured improperly ???
None of the users I have sold NOD32 to have had any speed issues.

Hmmm...

As far as having to run the service for bitdefender to work (which it does) I just set it to manual and start it up when I need to update or scan. Just go to Run and type "Services.msc" and it will take you straight to the services. Kind of a pain I know, but not that difficult.

[Mele20]

I haven't tried NOD32 recently. So perhaps it has changed since I last had it. But I was disappointed back then in how slow it became with the HTTP scanner on and even with that off the full system scans tripled in time taken. It just wasn't the old NOD32 at all. But perhaps that has changed and it isfaster and lighter now. Would be sort of unusual since most software gets more bloated as time goes by...but maybe NOD32 is an exception. I can't say how it is today.

[Stan999]

{QUOTE-> I haven't tried NOD32 recently. So perhaps it has changed since I last had it. But I was disappointed back then in how slow it became with the HTTP scanner on and even with that off the full system scans tripled in time taken. It just wasn't the old NOD32 at all. But perhaps that has changed and it isfaster and lighter now. Would be sort of unusual since most software gets more bloated as time goes by...but maybe NOD32 is an exception. I can't say how it is today. <-QUOTE}

Do you think it might be a bit disingenuous to keep putting down
an AV you haven't tried in over a year?

[Paranoid2000]

{QUOTE-> I have NOD32 with the max settings and it scans my 80Gb hard drive in under 20 minutes. I only have 512Mb RAM and a 1.2GHz AMD Proc. I use Bitdefender as my backup scanner and it takes twice as long to scan the same thing as NOD does. <-QUOTE}Surely it is the amount of data (and especially compressed data) that should determine scan time, not hard disk size?

[Firecat]

{QUOTE-> I use BitDefender as my sole antivirus on my XP box and have done so for over a year. I think it is excellent. It scans FAST. NOD32 is MUCH MUCH slower in scanning. NOD32 takes forever and brings my fast 3.4 GHz, 2MB RAM box to its knees. Bit Defender is not nearly as fast as F-Prot but it is reasonably fast and quite snappy on right click demand scan, although again not nearly as fast as F-Prot, but much faster than NOD32 which has gone from being the lightest and fastest AV to one of the most bloated and slowest. <-QUOTE}
NOD32 runs very fast on my system - AMD Athlon 64 3000+ (Socket 754) with 1GB RAM, Windows XP Home. Perhaps NOD32 was slow on your PC due to the 2MB RAM.... (I'm just kidding) ;D

Back on topic, BitDefender Free is quite fast, has an excellent unpack engine, and the detection is surely in the upper end of the spectrum. Enough said :D

[Capp]

{QUOTE-> Surely it is the amount of data (and especially compressed data) that should determine scan time, not hard disk size? <-QUOTE}

Surely :)

I use normal compression and my hard drive isn't completely full. There are a ton of files though. It usually scans around 300k.

[Firefighter]

{QUOTE-> Do you think it might be a bit disingenuous to keep putting down an AV you haven't tried in over a year? <-QUOTE}I thought it might be a bit disingenuous to keep putting down a certain AV at all. :)

Best regards,
Firefighter!

[Mele20]

{QUOTE-> Do you think it might be a bit disingenuous to keep putting down
an AV you haven't tried in over a year? <-QUOTE}

Maybe. Maybe not. I'm not in the habit of trying AV, or any other software, again that has let me down once. I have no interest in trying NOD32 again. It still has that HTTP scanner which is unnecessary and just bloats it up. Most of them have a bunch of unnecessary junk. I just wish Frisk would put up version 4 of F-Prot (and not junk it up in the process). One of the great things about F-Prot has been no email scanner. If they would just fix the GUI for XP...I like BD free because it is just an on demand scanner...but a great one. I have ProcessGuard to defend against rootkits and the like.

[Stan999]

{QUOTE-> Maybe. Maybe not. I'm not in the habit of trying AV, or any other software, again that has let me down once. <-QUOTE}

No one suggested you try it again?

KAV never let you down?;)

[Rasheed187]

Yes, I know that AV´s can´t always catch everything, but still it´s hard to not loose trust in a product if it fails on you. And besides AntiVir is way better than Bitdefender Free, I think we can all agree on that. ;)

[ghodgson]

I tried BD free for a little while some time ago, but I removed it for a different reason other than its speed. Although now I cannot remember what the actual file in BD free was, but when using BD free my firewall was always bringing to my attention that it was always wanting to 'phone home'. [not just for the updates !] Maybe it has changed since then, but thats why I stopped using it.

[Don Pelotas]

{QUOTE-> And besides AntiVir is way better than Bitdefender Free, I think we can all agree on that. ;) <-QUOTE}
No, i'm sorry Rasheed, we can't ;). BitDenfender actually has improved quite a bit and is at least as good as AntiVir.:)

[The Hammer]

{QUOTE-> No, I'm sorry Rasheed, we can't ;). BitDefender actually has improved quite a bit and is at least as good as AntiVir.:) <-QUOTE}
Actually BitDefender had a better overall score in the latest AV-Comparatives test,(on demand) as well as being quite a bit better in several categories within the test.

[rdsu]

BitDefender have a great detection rate, but the rest...
I don't choose an AV only because of its detection...

[~~~~~]

{QUOTE-> Yes, I know that AV´s can´t always catch everything, but still it´s hard to not loose trust in a product if it fails on you. And besides AntiVir is way better than Bitdefender Free, I think we can all agree on that. ;) <-QUOTE}

No we can't.

[hollywoodpc]

Please understand that antivirus solutions are just that . Because Bit Defender missed some trojans means nothing . KAV is trying to add trojan protection into there AV and has done a good job . But , it also gives more fp s . Bit Defender free , for me , stinks . Alot of people like it . I do not . I do not believe it is as good as others think it is either . I will not mention other AV solutions . Only comment on BD . In my opinion , BD is fine as a BACKUP . I would not use as my # 1 . Honestly , I would not use it as a back up but , I think it is ok for most home users .

[Mr2cents]

I used to use it as an on demand scanner when I had Nod32 installed. It was okay. As others have stated...it takes a long time to scan your hardrive. And theirs no resident protection.

It took over an hour to scan mine. After I uninstalled Nod and moved to kav. I don't use an on demand scanner anymore. Although their are downsides to bitdefender... I would use it again. It has great detection rates according to av-comparatives.

I wouldn't judge a scanner that is slow as bad. I would much rather have a slower scanner with good detection rates...than a fast scanner that has poor or below average detection rates.

[tiagozt]

{QUOTE-> I was considering running the free version of BitDefender, any opinions if it's worth it. Thanks in advance for any replies. <-QUOTE}


I tested a free version that have no real-time scan. Itsn't an antivirus if have no real-time scan. But BitDefender (paid) is very good software. If you have another real-time scan antivirus BD free can be cool... but I like only one antivirus software WITH real-time scan... as Avast, Antivir...

[Albinoni]

{QUOTE-> I use BitDefender as my sole antivirus on my XP box and have done so for over a year. I think it is excellent. It scans FAST. NOD32 is MUCH MUCH slower in scanning. NOD32 takes forever and brings my fast 3.4 GHz, 2MB RAM box to its knees. Bit Defender is not nearly as fast as F-Prot but it is reasonably fast and quite snappy on right click demand scan, although again not nearly as fast as F-Prot, but much faster than NOD32 which has gone from being the lightest and fastest AV to one of the most bloated and slowest. <-QUOTE}

Hi just to ask you are you using the Pro version of BD or the free version. I use both NOD32 V2.0 and also Bitdefender 9 Professional Plus. I use NOD 32 on two PC's and BD on one. Personally to me they are both excellent AV progs and both do a very good job. I've never encountered a slow scan with NOD32 ar all and as a matter of fact its been excellent and fast. But I did find the free version of BD to be slow, infact slower than the paid full version like the one I'm using.

[The Hammer]

{QUOTE-> I haven't tried NOD32 recently. So perhaps it has changed since I last had it. But I was disappointed back then in how slow it became with the HTTP scanner on and even with that off the full system scans tripled in time taken. It just wasn't the old NOD32 at all. But perhaps that has changed and it is faster and lighter now. Would be sort of unusual since most software gets more bloated as time goes by...but maybe NOD32 is an exception. I can't say how it is today. <-QUOTE}The latest trend is for Av's to get lighter and faster as in the latest versions of Kaspersky and Norton according to forum members who have the latest non beta versions.

[Rasheed187]

I already said this, but I don´t understand how Bitdefender Free can be better than AntiVir if it hasn´t got realtime protection, that´s why I said "we can all agree that Antivir is better". ;)

[~~~~]

{QUOTE-> I already said this, but I don´t understand how Bitdefender Free can be better than AntiVir if it hasn´t got realtime protection, that´s why I said "we can all agree that Antivir is better". ;) <-QUOTE}

Actually what you wrote is this

{QUOTE-> Yes, I know that AV´s can´t always catch everything, but still it´s hard to not loose trust in a product if it fails on you. And besides AntiVir is way better than Bitdefender Free, I think we can all agree on that. <-QUOTE}

No mention of realtime protection, only mention of detection rate.
And not everyone agrees Antivir is better in that area that bitdefender. In fact, I suspect it's closer to the other way around.

[Bambo]

Bitdefender free does install with 2 required services but if you only use commandline scanner they can be disabled. Then use commandline scanner in download managers or plugins like the one I use in Firefox, Download Statusbar. I have made an entry in Scheduler so Bitdefender updates itself once per day. I never notice it at all unless there is virus of course. Normal GUI a bit dumb though, not interesting.

Use "bdc.exe %1 /r /p /I" in download manager and perhaps also a batchfile which does not scan all files, some can be excluded.

Use "bdc.exe" "/update" in scheduler.

Command line scanner live in program files/common files/Softwin/Bitdefender Scan Server. All updated signatures etc. is in plugins folder.

So better than Antivir if you have use for (extra) free commandline scanner.

[whatilike]

What I like about BitDefender free, along with my main AV, is BF is added to your right click menu, so you can click on anything you just downloaded and do a real quick scan of that file to see if it's malware. No need to run 1 hour scans with BD free unless you want to.

[Bambo]

Forgot rightclick. Dont remember if it can be disabled in GUI but if not use ShellExView - in there I can see mine is disabled but I might have used BF program. Doesnt matter. Should be disabled cause program is not working properly with no services running.