Which would you choose

[Albinoni]

I know this Q has been asked before but the debate here on either free Avast AV or free eTrust 1 year AV from Microsoft. How do they both compare in terms of detection, system resources, speed etc and if you had to choose which would be you choice.

[C.S.J]

DO NOT GO FOR ETRUST.

i cannot in NO way, give a good comment about ca antivirus or their sooo called 'suite' .

its slow, performs with a massive drag on your machine and has LOW detection rates.

if you want free antivirus, try avg free / antivir or avast, all are good and all have free versions (i think).

give them all a try and see which you prefer. ;D

[Albinoni]

This may sound stupid but I always thought paid AV software such as eTrust would offer better detection and protection against unpaid i.e free. I can't comment on eTrusts detection simply because I havent used it, but not that long ago I was using one of my brothers friends laptops (LG) and she had eTrust Suite on it and I must say I was quiite disspointed and a resource hog, I could feel it to be honest.

[JerryM]

Hi Albinoni,

Our logic would say that paid AVs would offer better protection than freebies.
For whatever reason, however, some vendors offer a free version of their application. The free versions lack some features, but the engines are the same, and as far as I can learn, have the same detection rates as their paid versions.

There is also the fact that some are just better at detection than others. AV Comparatives is well respected, and one can see the results of tests there.

Avira was one of the two top AVs, and they offer a free version. It is better than most paid AVs.
Avast is better, in my view, than other paid AVs.

Best,
Jerry

[C.S.J]

"Avira was one of the two top AVs, and they offer a free version. It is better than most paid AVs. "


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
to say something on that,

detection rate is not everything... got to have the balance right, of which avira do not have.

stick to what your know, the nortons, the kasperskys etc etc and you wont go wrong.

i dont think he should use etrust, surely its one of the worst, if not the worst on the market / paid or otherwise.
try it yourself and see :)

[the Tester]

{QUOTE-> detection rate is not everything... got to have the balance right, of which avira do not have.

stick to what your know, the nortons, the kasperskys etc etc and you wont go wrong. <-QUOTE}

What "balance" are you talking about?
You are consistent about one thing,I'll grant you that....
You consistently run AntiVir down.And any test that AntiVir fared well in.
While detection rate may not be everything.It sure is relevant and one of the most important criteria for me when selecting an antivirus program.

[lodore]

{QUOTE-> What "balance" are you talking about?
You are consistent about one thing,I'll grant you that....
You consistently run AntiVir down.And any test that AntiVir fared well in.
While detection rate may not be everything.It sure is relevant and one of the most important criteria for me when selecting an antivirus program. <-QUOTE}


you do need a balance of speed,detection rate,interface,reliablity e.g. will it load up on startup fine or will it produce errors quite alot etc.

lodore

[C.S.J]

{QUOTE-> you do need a balance of speed,detection rate,interface,reliablity e.g. will it load up on startup fine or will it produce errors quite alot etc.

lodore <-QUOTE}
yep, as lodore said, a balance of things.

detection rate alone is all avira sell on ..... i do understand some people will buy it, but hey... nobodys perfect. :)

[lodore]

{QUOTE-> yep, as lodore said, a balance of things.

detection rate alone is all avira sell on ..... i do understand some people will buy it, but hey... nobodys perfect. :) <-QUOTE}

i think nod32 has it almost cracked lol.

kav is very close on having it cracked the balance.

[C.S.J]

actually ... there are quite a few in my opinion that have it cracked.

norton 2007 suite
avg 7.5 suite
trend micro 2007 suite
kaspersky suite
f-secure suite

all them are FULLY capable of protection, id feel safe using all of those either way... even though some have bad things which others dont, none are perfect.

i have a licence for trend and now avg 2 year, go on ebay its cheaper. ;D

nod, yep capable indeed for stand-a-lone, to be honest... even though im a suite-lover, if i ever went for stand-a-lone, id choose nod32, but i hate the interface of it, all this imon and amon or whatever, so stupid in my opinion.

[lodore]

{QUOTE-> actually ... there are quite a few in my opinion that have it cracked.

norton 2007 suite
avg 7.5 suite
trend micro 2007 suite
kaspersky suite
f-secure suite

all them are FULLY capable of protection, id feel safe using all of those either way... even though some have bad things which others dont, none are perfect.

i have a licence for trend and now avg 2 year, go on ebay its cheaper. ;D

nod, yep capable indeed for stand-a-lone, to be honest... even though im a suite-lover, if i ever went for stand-a-lone, id choose nod32, but i hate the interface of it, all this imon and amon or whatever, so stupid in my opinion. <-QUOTE}


i used to like suites intill i relised how bloated they can be.
i thought norton and macafee where the only bloated suites.
with seprates you get best of everyworld.
best firewall best antivirus best antispyware etc.

[C.S.J]

some feel bloated... the old nortons did and mcafee still does.

but some are super fast ;D

[lodore]

{QUOTE-> some feel bloated... the old nortons did and mcafee still does.

but some are super fast ;D <-QUOTE}


f-secure is bloated but it provides solid and almost unbeatable protection i think they should replace ad aware engine thou.

but suites are normaly bloated because they use quite a few engines.

they buy companies or use engines from different companies so it gets bloated.
avg+ewido is ultimate thou because they both light.

[C.S.J]

they say they have improved their spyware detection and removal.

and added better detection to the other things aswell.

yes its bloated that it takes longer to boot and a longer scan speed, but i, personally, dont think it runs slow at all. (but ive only ever installed it without parental control, maybe this is the slow down part?)

[lodore]

{QUOTE-> they say they have improved their spyware detection and removal.

and added better detection to the other things aswell.

yes its bloated that it takes longer to boot and a longer scan speed, but i, personally, dont think it runs slow at all. (but ive only ever installed it without parental control, maybe this is the slow down part?) <-QUOTE}

i dono it never gave me the option to not install it i wish it had becauses its an extra process.

how light is avg antispy?
or as the installer file it looks like its called avgas lol

[Albinoni]

Thanks for the replies guys. Though I'm bit shocked here that not many people here have commented on NOD32 and its great protection, detection rate, speed and what it has to offer. And also some say that Avira offers the best protection and better than that paid versions, but when you say paid does this also refer to NOD32 and KAV ?

Now on the subject of etrust and its bad detection rate etc, does this mean that Zone Alarm ISS also has bad detection rate, as ZA uses CA engine though I'm not quite sure which one. I know as a fact ZA ISS reviewed in most Australian PC magz have done and scored very well sometimes 9/10.

[JerryM]

The free versions have the same engines, and offer the same detection rates if I remember IBK's comments.
That being true, according to AV Comparatives the free Avira offers a higher detection rate than either NOD or KAV. Of course the difference in Avira and KAV is 99.51% vs 99..06 for Kaspersky and 98.61% for NOD. In my view those differences are inconsequential.

It is far more important that the application run well on your system, and such things as updates, scan times, and support.

I use F-Secure on my laptop because Avira did not run well. I am willing to tolerate the somewhat longer scan and load times and not have to put up with problems.
Best,
Jerry

[Albinoni]

Not to sound bias here, but really wont most users here choose NOD32 over Avira any day if they were given the choice.

And talk about detection rate does this mean that Avira will protect your PC better than NOD and if so why has NOD won more awards than Avira.

Sorry if I sound confused.

[dah145]

{QUOTE-> Not to sound bias here, but really wont most users here choose NOD32 over Avira any day if they were given the choice.

And talk about detection rate does this mean that Avira will protect your PC better than NOD and if so why has NOD won more awards than Avira.

Sorry if I sound confused. <-QUOTE}
Well, also should be noted that Avira has improved lately, on past tests KAV and Nod32 were always at the top and continue being there, I only hope that Avira keep improving, that way it could get some "awards".

[C.S.J]

{QUOTE-> Not to sound bias here, but really wont most users here choose NOD32 over Avira any day if they were given the choice.

And talk about detection rate does this mean that Avira will protect your PC better than NOD and if so why has NOD won more awards than Avira.

Sorry if I sound confused. <-QUOTE}

hell yeah!

people will choose nod32 over avira, yet nod32 has a slightly lower detection rate, you wonder why?

1. nod32 is a better product
2. the layout of nod32 is far better
3. the heuristics on nod32 are better
4. nod32's email-scanning 'works'
5. nod32 has a greater selection of options to configure if needed.

i could keep going on, but this clearly states that people (the sane ones) dont just judge an antivirus clearly on its detection rates.

[trjam]

On this, we finally agree.:)

[C.S.J]

{QUOTE-> On this, we finally agree.:) <-QUOTE}

lol well obviously, im not a lover of avira

[JerryM]

It boils down to what runs best on a particular system. NOD and KAV 6 both run well without conflicts on mine.

Avira was very light, and except for not opening at startup sometimes, and not showing in the tray sometimes, it ran at least as well as the others. If they would correct those shortcomings I would prefer it to NOD.

If it does not run well then don't use it, but if it does it is as good as KAV or NOD, and has a little better detection rate than either. I notice that detection rate is not important unless it is your favorite at the top, and then that is a real "selling point."

AVs are just software to be used according to need. They are not to be worshipped or fought about.
Use what you like best and realize that yours is not the best for everyone. That includes NOD and KAV as well as Avira.

I probably like Bit Defender least of any AV due to conflicts and poor support. However, some consider it the best of all. Great if it works for them.

Regards,
Jerry

[tobacco]

{QUOTE-> lol well obviously, im not a lover of avira <-QUOTE}

Well i guess not. Being an AVG user and watching Antivir kick it's butt time and time again.::)

[C.S.J]

ha you think so....

a better detection rate is all that avira have to sell on.
and its not even that much better, especially with the integration of ewido into avg and with avg improving their own services aswell with better heuristics and ntfs data streams, add ewido into this and i cant wait for the next on demand test. ;D

[JerryM]

{QUOTE-> ha you think so....

a better detection rate is all that avira have to sell on.
and its not even that much better, especially with the integration of ewido into avg and with avg improving their own services aswell with better heuristics and ntfs data streams, add ewido into this and i cant wait for the next on demand test. ;D <-QUOTE}

I will be very interested in how AVG fares with the future AVC tests. The free AV is used by a lot of folks I know, and all are completely satisfied. That says a lot. They are safe users.

I agree that detection rates are not the criterion by which I would choose an AV. But if several run well, and the costs are essentially equal I would choose the one with the best detection rates.

Fuel efficiency is not my major consideration when buying a car, but I don't ignore it either, and it may be a factor.

Best,
Jerry

[C.S.J]

to add to that...

an antivirus such as avira that sometimes fails to load on startup / fails to load the icon and sometimes fails to scan emails, great software. LOL

add the terrible layout and the really expensive pricetag, to quote the title thread "which would you choose" ?

like ive said many times, avira's product sells purely off detection rate.

people who even have a licence for premiem are being told to pay a lot of money just to upgrade to the suite which is the same plus the most basic firewall ever, very poor software. very poor company in my opinion

[JerryM]

{QUOTE-> to add to that...

an antivirus such as avira that sometimes fails to load on startup / fails to load the icon and sometimes fails to scan emails, great software. LOL

add the terrible layout and the really expensive pricetag, to quote the title thread "which would you choose" ?

like ive said many times, avira's product sells purely off detection rate.

people who even have a licence for premiem are being told to pay a lot of money just to upgrade to the suite which is the same plus the most basic firewall ever, very poor software. very poor company in my opinion <-QUOTE}


As to the price, the Premium lists for $25.35. That included VAT, and I am not sure if there is a way around that. But even including the VAT it is among the least expensive AV, I think.???

Jerry

[C.S.J]

erm actually.. there was a thread, cant remember which, about the price premiem customers have to pay to upgrade to the suite.

its huge apparently, more people slagging avira off on that thread, was a great read ;D

its on wilders somewhere :)

epecially with the software not even loading at boot sometimes, and sometimes not scanning emails etc, who would want to use security like this?

[lodore]

{QUOTE-> erm actually.. there was a thread, cant remember which, about the price premiem customers have to pay to upgrade to the suite.

its huge apparently, more people slagging avira off on that thread, was a great read ;D

its on wilders somewhere :)

epecially with the software not even loading at boot sometimes, and sometimes not scanning emails etc, who would want to use security like this? <-QUOTE}


bitdefender has been reported for not loading up on startup when version 10 first came in.

[JerryM]

There is also a thread on NOD about not starting at start-up.
I agree that I am not willing to "fool with" those problems, but if Avira does fix the problems I encountered I would prefer it to anything except KAV. At half the price I would buy it instead.
But since there is a free version, that might be the best choice.

Best,
Jerry

[lodore]

{QUOTE-> There is also a thread on NOD about not starting at start-up.
I agree that I am not willing to "fool with" those problems, but if Avira does fix the problems I encountered I would prefer it to anything except KAV. At half the price I would buy it instead.
But since there is a free version, that might be the best choice.

Best,
Jerry <-QUOTE}


why dont you try the aol active virus shield cut down version of kav?
or have you already? it would protect you more than most other free products.

[Firefighter]

{QUOTE-> to add to that...

an antivirus such as avira that sometimes fails to load on startup / fails to load the icon... <-QUOTE} Lucky me that I haven't met these kind of bugs with AVIRA AntiVir PE 7 Classic and WinXP Home. :-[

{QUOTE-> ...and sometimes fails to scan emails, great software. LOL <-QUOTE}For me, it's more important, that I can see these kind of real time scan reports from my mail attachments, when I tried to double click that. :)

10/26/2006,20:54:54 [WARNING] Contains signature of the dropper DR/Shelled.Gen!
C:\Documents and Settings\Username_xyz\Local Settings\Application Data\Mozilla\Firefox\Profiles\u4udzukm.default\cache\de94e5d6d01
[INFO] The file will be deleted.

Unfortunately 10 other scanning engines couldn't detect that in VirusTotal after 6 days, when I scanned the file at first in there. Could they detect that by their mail scanners? ;D

{QUOTE-> add the terrible layout and the really expensive pricetag, to quote the title thread "which would you choose" ? <-QUOTE}Remember, PE Classic is free and it can protect you enough. ;)

Best regards,
Firefighter!

[Firefighter]

{QUOTE-> yep, as lodore said, a balance of things.

detection rate alone is all avira sell on ..... i do understand some people will buy it, but hey... nobodys perfect. :) <-QUOTE}May I have missed something, do av-vendors sell, Movies, Bicycles, Beer, HotDogs etc. as well or just Alka-Seltzer and painkillers? :-\

Best regards,
Firefighter!

[JerryM]

{QUOTE-> why dont you try the aol active virus shield cut down version of kav?
or have you already? it would protect you more than most other free products. <-QUOTE}

For some reason I do not want any dealings with AOL. In time it might be OK, but really I am not dissatisfied with F-Secure. It is as effective as any other. I would consider buying it at the half price rate. By the time the trial is up, I hope Avira Classic will be as bug free as any other.

I guess I will fall for the "detection rate alone is all avira sell on." ;D

For some silly reason that is why I want an AV. ??? ???

Best,
Jerry

[the Tester]

{QUOTE-> you do need a balance of speed,detection rate,interface,reliablity e.g. will it load up on startup fine or will it produce errors quite alot etc.

lodore <-QUOTE}


Using those criteria AntiVir PE Classic is the best that I have used.

[lodore]

{QUOTE-> Using those criteria AntiVir PE Classic is the best that I have used. <-QUOTE}


fair enough.

[the Tester]

{QUOTE-> i could keep going on, but this clearly states that people (the sane ones) dont just judge an antivirus clearly on its detection rates. <-QUOTE}

Wow!
You are apparently a psychiatrist in addition to being an AVG fanboy?

Seriously,
Who are you to say crap like that about how anyone judges an antivirus?

[lodore]

{QUOTE-> For some reason I do not want any dealings with AOL. In time it might be OK, but really I am not dissatisfied with F-Secure. It is as effective as any other. I would consider buying it at the half price rate. By the time the trial is up, I hope Avira Classic will be as bug free as any other.

I guess I will fall for the "detection rate alone is all avira sell on." ;D

For some silly reason that is why I want an AV. ??? ???

Best,
Jerry <-QUOTE}


i dont blame you i dont trust aol eiether but if you dont install toolbar its just a free kaspersky with a aol skin

[farmerlee]

I'd recommend you give CA etrust AV a go. Its quite light on the resources and its protection is good.

[C.S.J]

{QUOTE-> I'd recommend you give CA etrust AV a go. Its quite light on the resources and its protection is good. <-QUOTE}

id recommend you leave ca etrust, its not light and the protection is NOT good. :-\

[lodore]

{QUOTE-> id recommend you leave ca etrust, its not light and the protection is NOT good. :-\ <-QUOTE}


lmao.

for free go avg if payed go nod32..

[disinter1]

For free antivirus go with Antivir, it's light and has not had any issues on my girlfriends laptop. It's the best free antivirus I have used, and I tried all top 3.

[WSFuser]

id say avast is better than etrust though it does use a bit of resources (depending on how u configure it).

and antivir clearly proves that free AV can match and even surpass detection rates of paid AV.