best paid AV for vista ?

[C.S.J]

ok, as thread states....

how good does 'your av' work on vista, i ask because ive just got it installed and dr.web isnt compatible, so looking for an alternative till that time comes.

[HiTech_boy]

Lots of AV products are compatible with Vista -> Symantec , Panda , Kaspersky , AVG , Avast , NOD32 , MS OneCare ... You can get as many answers/suggestions as posts .
NOD32 would be my vote ! Works very well :thumb:

[C.S.J]

hmm, i havnt done the 'trying' of software thing for a while :)

time to have some fun then eh? ;D


msonecare?

LOL neverrrrrr

[CJsDad]

I'm using NOD32, works fine here. (Vista Home Premium)
I also have KIS but I'm keeping that on the other computer with Windows XP.
I 've heard Kaspersky works well with Vista also.
I also have the NIS 2007 CD that was shipped with the Vista computer, haven't used that one

[HiTech_boy]

{QUOTE->
msonecare?

LOL neverrrrrr <-QUOTE}

Same here but just to mention it if there are some fans of it here ;)

[EQ2]

I choose NOD32，because of its heuristic and fast speed

[C.S.J]

i forgot about panda, maybe i will dig out my panda IS 2007 which i bought for 99p off ebay *lol* only tested it once, never really used it.

[EQ2]

I have never used Panda Internet Security，I want to know if it is good

[C.S.J]

if i find it, i will let you know what its like on vista HP,

having only tried it once, it looked ok etc, but until my dr.web comes vista, i will use it, give it a proper run-through with vista :)

[HiTech_boy]

{QUOTE-> i forgot about panda, maybe i will dig out my panda IS 2007 which i bought for 99p off ebay *lol* only tested it once, never really used it. <-QUOTE}

I'm afraid you can't . Panda's version which works on Vista is Panda AV 2007 only (the orange one) . Panda AV and Panda IS 2007 are still not made to work on the new OS

[EQ2]

I think drweb‘s false positives is too high.It can kill many normal files

[C.S.J]

{QUOTE-> I'm afraid you can't . Panda's version which works on Vista is Panda AV 2007 only (the orange one) . Panda AV and Panda IS 2007 are still not made to work on the new OS <-QUOTE}
correct you are,

it didnt let me even install it, nevermind run it.

ok, panda av only trial :)

ive got panda in my head to try, never really tried it, but if it fails, i will fall back on nod32 till my dr.web becomes vista ready :)

[Technodrome]

{QUOTE->

ok, panda av only trial :)
<-QUOTE}

It's free for Panda users.

[C.S.J]

cool, so i just use the same serial? :)

thats very good of panda.

-----------
edit, looks cheap and cheerfull *lol*

good options though, fantastic scan speed.

so far, its good although i do wish it did look better (and yes im a dr.web user *lol*)

[plantextract]

in my opinion these so called "advanced heuristics" of NOODs are a bit overrated. i think that the user itself is the best heuristics you can find, and that almost any AV will do. The best av for vista is the one that doesn't crash, doesn't impact your system performance, doesn't make you look like an idiot when seeing it's user interface (not because it's beutyfull, but because it's hard to go through) and doesn't conflict with anything else.

[lodore]

well for me thats nod32 of kav then;D
ok that was offtopic since i wont be using vista for ages=D
lodore

[trjam]

Hopefully next month, the best will be Avira.:) :) :)

[DVD+R]

I'm using NOD32, not problems here, I did try Kaspersky, it worked fine too, untill I installed Spy Sweeper, and Spy Sweeper wouldnt scan with Kaspersky installed....well actually it did scan, but it took 9 hours :blink: 16 minutes when I uninstalled Kaspersky :blink:

[gamersmile]

a little more votes for NOD32 than any other choices, huh
Luckily I'm using NOD32 on my PC at the moment

[Firecat]

I would have suggested BitDefender 10, but I've heard that BD10 is slow with Vista on some PCs. So at this point I recommend AVG Anti-Malware, it was one of the first products to support Vista as well.

[Krond]

{QUOTE-> Hopefully next month, the best will be Avira.:) :) :) <-QUOTE}


No, Avira will come in April, after the "CeBit".....not next month.....

[Sjoeii]

{QUOTE-> I'm using NOD32, not problems here, I did try Kaspersky, it worked fine too, untill I installed Spy Sweeper, and Spy Sweeper wouldnt scan with Kaspersky installed....well actually it did scan, but it took 9 hours :blink: 16 minutes when I uninstalled Kaspersky :blink: <-QUOTE}

What version og Spy Sweeper and Kaspersky where you running.
I use KIS 6.0.2.616 and Spy Sweeper 5.3 and it runs like sunshine.:thumb:
Maybe the settings where not good?

[lodore]

just dont use the shields in spysweeper 5.3 and close IE7 or you will blue screen;D
btw its true not a joke but funny anyway;D
lodore

[C.S.J]

ok, i ran panda 2007, and put it through its paces, the software runs very fast and very light indeed, works great on vista.

cons: scanning archives seems a bit poor, unzip them and it finds it automatically.

---------
now giving nod32 a go on vista :)

[Legendkiller]

norton av 2007,the best available for xp+vista...

[jmschwartz]

but maybe not for Vista 64-bit without the revision.

[Edwin024]

I think KIS is the best. It is one of the few who gives you not only a very decent AV but also a more than decent firewall in Vista. I use it on the 64 bit Ultimate.

[C.S.J]

anyhow,

thought id do a little testing as i was bored, and here were my findings on vista, the test was done by me, so dont go shouting off at me for testing meth, or the set of test files used, its just a guildline done by me between these, few vista compatible antivirus, and believe me when i say, all are on the highest of settings

based on a kaspersky test-set (so kaspersky gets 100% here)

shocking results:

1. Avast Pro 4.7

3,040 remained after detection and removal

79.1 mb remained after detection and removal

91.9%

-------

2. Dr.Web 4.33

4,570 remained after detection and removal

276mb remained after detection and removal

87.8%

-------

3. BitDefender AV 10

6,105 remained after detection and removal

235 mb remained after detection and removal

83.7%

-------

4. Norton AV 2007

9,978 remained after detection and removal

298 mb remained after detection and removal

73.4%

184 removal errors, only REVIEW was an option. (norton did block these threats though so user is safe)

-------

5. NOD32

16,567 remained after detection and removal

313 mb remained after detection and removal

53.7%
-------

6. Panda Antivirus 2007

19,139 remained after detection and removal

398 mb remained after detection and removal

48.9%


ok, this is only a 60,000 malware set, of which kaspersky detection 100% of, it includes all varients of malware types, including rootkits too, these percentages are just my own testing, and IN NO WAY relate to the antivirus's overall detection rate, still a good read though right?

----------
1 question, does avast use kaspersky signatures of any kind, why sooooo good on detection here?

im utterly shocked here, im pretty sure all these are malware samples, genuine, yet it was avast pro that found the most i tested with vista, and to be honest, avast and nod32 were the fastest at scanning/removing malware with panda a very close second, will keep my eye on avast.

[lodore]

hey Chris,
what about kav6.0,nav2007,Avast,bitdefender
that should take a few hours:D
lodore

[C.S.J]

well the test was made from a kaspersky test-set, so kaspersky get 100% here, thats why i didnt add them to it, and they dont have many FP's so i think they are legit malware files.

i shall give NAV2007 a go, and tonight add it to my post above, hope it works ok on my vista.

[lodore]

dont forgot bitdefender and avast;D
lodore

[C.S.J]

hmm, we'll see...... but i have work and a life you know *lol*

i'll give bitdefender a go though, as im curious about that one myself.

[lodore]

yup i wonder if they really do secure your everybit;D
lodore

[Malcontent]

{QUOTE->

i shall give NAV2007 a go, and tonight add it to my post above, hope it works ok on my vista. <-QUOTE}

I'm looking forward to hearing the results from NAV2007.

[C.S.J]

im not a professional or anything,

but i'll give it a go and see how it compares. :)

i must admit though, NAV2007 is by far the best GUI on any AV, i just love how it looks, looks even better on vista with aero, testing it now and will add it to the post above.

[lodore]

i think nod32 looks good with aero
lodore

[Edwin024]

You must be joking ;)

[HiTech_boy]

{QUOTE-> i think nod32 looks good with aero
lodore <-QUOTE}

Everything looks good in Vista's Aero ;D :thumb:

[legendary]

Panda 2007 is working very well with Vista along with quick scanning times.

[C.S.J]

ok, lodore / malcontent

i added norton 2007 for ya. ;D

currently testing bitdefender av 10 on vista, wow on the ram usage!!!! 2mb. *lol*

im willing this one to do well, always liked bitdefender

[Malcontent]

{QUOTE-> ok, lodore / malcontent

i added norton 2007 for ya. ;D

currently testing bitdefender av 10 on vista, wow on the ram usage!!!! 2mb. *lol*

im willing this one to do well, always liked bitdefender <-QUOTE}

Thanks. Much appreciated. And very interesting results.

BTW, does your copy of Norton 2007 have that "Sonar" feature installed?

[C.S.J]

yes it does have sonar,

just added bitdefender and avast and edited the main post in a few places, look up a few spaces

SHOCKING RESULTS

let me know what you think.

[vlk]

How many samples did you use?

[Mongol]

{QUOTE-> yes it does have sonar,

just added bitdefender and avast and edited the main post in a few places, look up a few spaces

SHOCKING RESULTS

let me know what you think. <-QUOTE}

Have you tested out DrWEB recently?...:o :)

[C.S.J]

{QUOTE-> How many samples did you use? <-QUOTE}

only about 60,000 according to kaspersky, either way... avast found more, surprised me :D .

erm, no i havnt tested dr.web, it isnt vista ready, still..... cant use my licenced software, blaaahh!!! :(

[Mongol]

{QUOTE-> only about 60,000 according to kaspersky, either way... avast found more, surprised me :D .

erm, no i havnt tested dr.web, it isnt vista ready, still..... cant use my licenced software, blaaahh!!! :( <-QUOTE}

You're right, I forgot about that issue...::) :blink: Hopefully the version is just around the corner...:)

[MalwareDie]

Were all of them updated on the same day and minute? or was it different like for example: Norton updated on feb 16 at 06:00 and Avast updated on feb 19 06:00.

[legendary]

Hey C.S.J, what do you think about AVG internet Security? i just picked one up at a Computer Show and am thinking about using it over Panda Antivirus. What can you tell me about it?

[Firecat]

{QUOTE-> Hey C.S.J, what do you think about AVG internet Security? i just picked one up at a Computer Show and am thinking about using it over Panda Antivirus. What can you tell me about it? <-QUOTE}
In my personal experience, I find AVG to be inconsistent in detection rates. Sometimes it surprises me with its detection rate, and at other times its just "average" (which, in short form, means "avg", pun intended :P)

[legendary]

So Firecat i should stay with either Panda or Avast Pro ?

[Firecat]

{QUOTE-> So Firecat i should stay with either Panda or Avast Pro ? <-QUOTE}
I think that either way all three AVs fall into the same category of detection rates. I would suggest Panda primarily due to better heuristics engine (among the three you speak of).

[ashishtx]

{QUOTE-> In my personal experience, I find AVG to be inconsistent in detection rates. Sometimes it surprises me with its detection rate, and at other times its just "average" (which, in short form, means "avg", pun intended ) <-QUOTE}

That is very true.

[C.S.J]

{QUOTE-> So Firecat i should stay with either Panda or Avast Pro ? <-QUOTE}
none :D

you should wait "just a couple days" and get the dr.web vista beta installed :D

[C.S.J]

ok i'll add dr.web, its not vista compatible yet, but the scanner still works on vista

[Malcontent]

{QUOTE-> ok i'll add dr.web, its not vista compatible yet, but the scanner still works on vista <-QUOTE}

Did you use the Dr. Web beta engine or the standard engine while testing Dr. Web against your malware?

[Firecat]

{QUOTE-> ok i'll add dr.web, its not vista compatible yet, but the scanner still works on vista <-QUOTE}
Do you mean Vista 32-bit or 64-bit?

I've had word from Virus Chaser that VC now fully supports Windows Vista 32-bit, so it makes sense that Dr.Web should support 32-bit Vista as well?

[C.S.J]

vista 32bit, no dr.web is not compat, although the beta for vista is a few days away.

i tested it on the released version 4.33

[Firecat]

{QUOTE-> vista 32bit, no dr.web is not compat, although the beta for vista is a few days away.

i tested it on the released version 4.33 <-QUOTE}
Virus Chaser also uses the same engine DLL as Dr.Web, and the same version as well at the moment. It is strange to me that Dr.Web itself does not support Vista 32-bit when its clone AV does. I suspect it has more to do with the code of the real time monitor itself rather than the engine, as the on-demand scanner of Dr.Web still works in Vista.

[C.S.J]

firecat,

dr.web's scanner works, but updates and real-time (spiderguard) do not work.

i aint even sure if the spidermail works either, just the scanner i think.

but the dr.web vista 32bit is coming soon, beta is a few days away, so im told. ;D

-----------
ok and out of the ones i tested, the ones i liked the most were (excluding dr.web), i liked panda and nod32. (still dont like nods layout, profiles etc)

i also must add that nod32 detected rather alot as heuristic detections, good job they have that..... or detection would be sooooooo poor on my own testing :) , nod32 is the one im currently using until my doctor comes vista ready :)

[Mongol]

{QUOTE-> I think that either way all three AVs fall into the same category of detection rates. I would suggest Panda primarily due to better heuristics engine (among the three you speak of). <-QUOTE}

I agree with this, Panda surprises me at times with what it bags, especially in the Malware & Spyware area and it runs pretty light. I'm still a big fan of DrWEB though, it's about 1/5th the size and seems every bit as effective...:D

[C.S.J]

well, i was using nod32 on my vista but ive noticed it slows my boot up time where others do not, is this normal?

the software works fine though, and no problems :)

still have the urge though, while i wait for my dr.web, to try out more av's *lol

[HiTech_boy]

{QUOTE-> well, i was using nod32 on my vista but ive noticed it slows my boot up time where others do not, is this normal? <-QUOTE}

No , it is not normal but it can be checked and possibly fixed.

[C.S.J]

im trying viruschaser, as i heard it uses dr.webs technology etc, but it looks a bit of a clone

the icon is a spider but its red not green *OMG*, is this right... i find it funny.

are they a sister-company?

it even said "dr.web spidermail for windows has stopped working......."

anyway, I DONT LIKE THE GUI, hear me DR.WEB, do not change your GUI if it is a viruschaser style.

also, VC allowed me to unzip 60,000 malware samples to my HD, whereas dr.web did not, and yes it was on all the highest settings, im scanning the files it just allowed me to unzip and it is finding threats, so why did it let me have them on the machine, does VC not have any realtime scanning at all?

[lodore]

hey Chris,
i executed the eicar test virus when virus chaser was on the machine and it didnt block in realtime but found it on an on demand scan.
so i dont think it has realtime scanning. even thou the usb virus chaser says it has realtime protection so the normal version should as well.
lodore

[C.S.J]

i dont like VC lodore,

no real-time scanning, let me unzip my malware collection.

also, when scanning it ondemand, it crashed twice.

and i hate the GUI, bring back the real DOCTOR WEB. ;D

[lodore]

i was explaining that i didnt like it either since it doesn't seem to have realtime protection and only finds stuff using on demand scanner
lodore

[Firecat]

{QUOTE-> i was explaining that i didnt like it either since it doesn't seem to have realtime protection and only finds stuff using on demand scanner
lodore <-QUOTE}
Its real time protection is done in "Create and Write" mode, due to which the RTM is not as good as it should be by default. If you wish to have the "Smart" mode RTM of Dr.Web, simply enable the network drive scan option in the settings. :)

Real Time Monitor in Virus Chaser works, I have tried it myself. But unfortunately, no heuristic analysis in VC, except for Chinese users, for whom it is enabled. :)

As far as company goes, they are a technical partner for Dr.Web. They develop their own code over Dr.Web's, and they also do virus analysis and add signatures to Dr.Web's database.

[C.S.J]

im sure they do, but its not as good..... it really isnt.

[Firecat]

{QUOTE-> im sure they do, but its not as good..... it really isnt. <-QUOTE}
Yes, it still has bugs here and there, but it works well enough. I, for one, keep a constant watch on the product because I think it has potential. But for now, Dr.Web is indeed better.

Oh, BTW, I do not have a screenshot of the first version of Virus Chaser, but it had a somewhat different interface to the current version, and it was reportedly developed by DialogueScience. I think you can still see the old interface if you find the Virus Chaser manual and download it at http://www.viruschaser.com

[C.S.J]

i enabled that option and it still let me unzip, launch virus codes and programs without it doing anything, sure it has potential as its based on the doctor,but how can an av let it do this? ???

[Firecat]

{QUOTE-> i enabled that option and it still let me unzip, launch virus codes and programs without it doing anything, sure it has potential as its based on the doctor,but how can an av let it do this? ??? <-QUOTE}
Maybe its Vista specific because I am not encountering this issue on Windows XP (The RTM catches all unzipped files). I guess I should report it....:-\

[337]

Anyone tried McAfee's vista compatible solutions?? ;D
Wondering how it would stack up against the current apps discussed?

[uc-icq]

This sort of question always comes down to personal preferences in the end. But if you ask me, NOD32 v2.70 has my vote for being fast, nimble and powerful

[Firecat]

{QUOTE-> i enabled that option and it still let me unzip, launch virus codes and programs without it doing anything, sure it has potential as its based on the doctor,but how can an av let it do this? ??? <-QUOTE} I think I have the answer now: The version of Virus Chaser downloaded from the Hong Kong server was not using the latest drweb32.dll due to technical difficulties. As a result, the real-time monitor driver was also not updated, which *could* account for why VC RTM was not working like it should have at that moment. As of right now they have updated the drweb32.dll and spider.sys files, so maybe you would like to try again...

BTW, sorry if I'm going off-topic, but I created a "photo gallery" of the previous version of Virus Chaser (version 5.0) for you guys, especially C.S.J. Since version 5.0 was supposedly developed by DialogueScience, there is a chance Dr.Web 5.0 may look like this. This old version of VC does indeed have the Dr.Web feel around its interface...(sorry for bad quality of screenshots, these screenshots are taken off the Virus Chaser 5.0 manual).

Virus Chaser main screen:
http://img483.imageshack.us/img483/2839/vc1ek6.jpg

Scan bar:

http://img369.imageshack.us/img369/8347/vc2zq0.jpg

On-demand scanner settings:

http://img398.imageshack.us/img398/2412/vc3bp7.jpg

Real-time monitor settings:

http://img444.imageshack.us/img444/3982/vc4vf5.jpg

Real-time monitor alert upon virus detection:

http://img459.imageshack.us/img459/5533/vc5nw3.jpg

IMO Virus Chaser is an extremely well-developed and well-tested AV based on the Dr.web engine. The only problem or gripe I've ever had with it is the lack of heuristic analysis. It has been 100% problem free and reliable for me apart from this lack of heuristics. If only they'd enable the heuristics....

[bigc73542]

{QUOTE-> norton av 2007,the best available for xp+vista... <-QUOTE}


Agreed :thumb:

[rayoflight]

{QUOTE-> previous version of Virus Chaser (version 5.0) <-QUOTE}
Previous?And what number of current version?

[Firecat]

{QUOTE-> Previous?And what number of current version? <-QUOTE}
Current version of Virus Chaser is 5.0a, which brings a new interface, and adware/spyware/rootkit detection, and also disables the heuristic analysis with no way to enable it.

[The One]

{QUOTE-> Agreed :thumb: <-QUOTE}

I Bigc & Legendkiller

I see that you are real Norton fans.
Could you please tell why you are such fans?

[C.S.J]

and myself and trjam aswell at the moment,

reason being: NIS (2007 range) is just bloody awesome! :o

;D

[The One]

But why?
I alway read that it is bloated.
Anti virus is not that good same goes for the firewall.

Is it really better than KIS, NOD32, AVIRA or BitDefender?

[WSFuser]

supposedly the new version (2007) is much lighter. also Norton's detection rates are good and have been so for some time.

[trjam]

Let me first say, I thought I was the LAST person ever to consider Norton again. But 2007 really, in my own thoughts, is the best out there. It is as quick on my PC as any other product I have tried. Nothing is slow. Maybe booting up takes longer for the icon then Eset, but I have the suite. If you want to tweak it, you can. But they evidently listened to their beta testers and have it pre-set to pretty much not have to change. Their detection is one of the best and I have to admit, it has soooooth my compulsiveness to search for the best. I know my antics are childish, but this is one suite that works. Works well enough for me to not sit here and keep debating on what to do. But this is for their 2007 products, 2008 may be different. This company had to do something and they did.

[The One]

Don't get me wrong I would love Norton and I'm really convinced it's much faster than previous versions.
There are just some things I'm not too happy about. I really like suites
* antivirus is good
* firewall is reasonable
* anti spam is bad
* there is no support unless you pay alot of money
* no support forum

[The One]

Just installed it on one of my pc's.
So testing it as we speak. v10.2 is pretty low on resources.

[midway40]

{QUOTE->
* anti spam is bad
<-QUOTE}

As far as I can tell there is no anti-spam, it is just a AV/FW setup. I can't find any settings for anti-spam. That may be the reason why process usage is lower than other suites as I reported in my thread.

That is fine with me since I don't really need it anyway. With Vista running an average of 65 processes (at least on my machine), you need all the help you can, lol.

[DVD+R]

Anti Spam, Parent Control Etc.. are all available in an Add-On Pack, but for Vista its not out Till March Sometime :)

[NAMOR]

{QUOTE-> Anti Spam, Parent Control Etc.. are all available in an Add-On Pack, but for Vista its not out Till March Sometime :) <-QUOTE}


yep,

{QUOTE->
The Norton Internet Security Add-on Pack is currently only available for the Windows XP operating system. Norton Internet Security Add-on Pack that is compatible with Windows Vista will be available by 30 March 2007.
<-QUOTE}

Here's the link for the add-on pack if someone wants it.

Norton Internet Security Add-on Pack for Windows XP (http://service1.symantec.com/SUPPORT/custserv.nsf/docid/2006092616462646)

[The One]

{QUOTE-> As far as I can tell there is no anti-spam, it is just a AV/FW setup. I can't find any settings for anti-spam. That may be the reason why process usage is lower than other suites as I reported in my thread.

That is fine with me since I don't really need it anyway. With Vista running an average of 65 processes (at least on my machine), you need all the help you can, lol. <-QUOTE}
As noted under these earlier. there is a add in with anti spam.
It's spamming things you don't want to be spammed and it isn't spamming things you do want to spam

[midway40]

That's ok, I won't be downloading it. I like my Norton the way it is :) This is the perfect setup for me.

My ISP uses Postini for spam and if something slips by it Windows Mail usually catches it. I am assuming that it is using the Outlook '03 spam filter because the other day I got an update for the OL03 spam filter and I don't even have it installed.

[Sjoeii]

Good for you. The anti spam isn't working well anyway