which one of the “free” musketeers you guys recommend

[hadi]

A friend wanted a good free antivirus. I know there are others but these 3 are quite well people talk about. But which one you recommend

AVG AntiVirus Free 7.322
AntiVir PersonalEdition
Free avast! 4 Home Edition

Thanks.

[Cochise]

AVG.........No Contest........ ;D


Cochise, 8)

[Arup]

Avast has the most features but others are good too, I have used Avast for the last two years without getting infected with anything, out of the three, Avast features web scanning, network, P2P and IM scanning as well as the mail scanning.

[q1aqza]

Avast - for same reason as above and that cool voice that shouts 'VIRUS' ;D

[Capp]

I would recommend either Avast or AVG. Both are great programs and I use them interchangebly.

AVG version 7, however, seems to hog more resources than version 6 did and that has caused some people to turn to Avast.

If you system is decent, either of these will do fine.

[TopperID]

{QUOTE-> AVG.........No Contest........ ;D <-QUOTE}
I do admire a man with a sense of humour! ;D ;D ;D

If you take a look at a few Forums with HJT sections you will see just how much stuff seems to get through the defences of those using AVG!
If it is detection rate you are after then there really is no contest - AntiVir is the winner (with Avast a close second). :P

If it is 'light' resource usage you are after, then AntiVir is again the winner! :P

If you insist on a POP3 mail scanner then AntiVir is not for you - but why would you want one especially? Mail scanners are a non-essential extra if your ISP is scanning your mail before it is sent and your 'on-access' Guard is scanning it as it is opened or saved? And if you are using web-mail (Yahoo, Hotmail etc ) it is entirely irrelevant.

[Firecat]

Another vote for AntiVir from me :)

[mercurie]

I use AVG 7 on an older Compaq with BoClean running along side. No problems here. No infections either. The other two I have not tried. ;)

[likuidkewl]

AntiVir - Because I have used it on and off since 1998, until I bought an AV, and it never let me down.
Pros:
light, good detection.
Cons:
Lagre updates, no POP scanning

[clansman77]

avast all the way.search the forum and u will get plenty of threads regarding all the 3 u mentioned with useful info..

[Hyperion]

Although i use AVG as resident and AntiVir as on demand,i d recomment without hesitation AntiVir above all 3.The only reason i have AVG resident is that it can't be set on demand without having some processes running in background while AntiVir can be set so.

[iwod]

I choose Avast. Simply Becoz i don't like AntiVir GUI.

Detection wise Antivir and Avast should be around the same. I guess this since Avast 4.6 has not been proberly tested. ( 4.1 was slightly behind in Av- compartives.org. But Post 4.1 add better generic detection )

Also Avast has layer protection as well as good GUI. It's resources usuage is not heavy. but not light either.

[Cochise]

{QUOTE-> I do admire a man with a sense of humour! ;D ;D ;D
<-QUOTE}


;D ;D ;D I can't argue with that Topper.. ;D ;D I suppose a fair sense of humour is required to cope with Computing at the best of times..... ;) I still rate AVG for my part tho'...had it close to three years now with never a prob...but to each his own eh?...

I did maybe think that there might not be any kind of AV that would help people who are having to constantly run to HJT for help, so maybe those HJT figures you quoted are possibly irrelevant to the question.... ;D ;D


Cochise, 8)

[Notok]

I have to vote for AntiVir. From what I've seen it has the better detection rates of the three, and they've been one of the quickest to add samples that I've sent them. I would also back it up with Ewido free with the context menu entry for scanning email attachments and other downloads.

[bellgamin]

{QUOTE-> I use AVG 7 on an older Compaq with BoClean running along side. No problems here. No infections either. The other two I have not tried. ;) <-QUOTE}Confucius say: "Your level of security is only revealed when it fails. Not being infected doesn't mean that you're OK." :D

For WinXP test at VirusBulletin (http://www.virusbtn.com/vb100/archives/products.xml?table), AntiVir-PE (H+BEDV) & AVG (Grisoft) *passed* whereas Avast (Alwil) *failed*

For another recent test where AntiVir, AVG, & Avast were tested...
_/Go > HERE (http://www.av-comparatives.org/)

_/Click "Comparatives" button

_/Download report (.pdf) for Feb 2005.

AntiVir-PE (AV-PE) has TWO excellent support forums at...
THAT place (http://www.computercops.biz/forum88.html)
AND
THAT other place (http://www.free-av.de/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi)

AV-PE has strong heuristics & a broad signature base. It updates engines & signatures frequently. AV-PE's daily signature updates are large, so (until an incremental updater becomes available) AV-PE is best used by those who are on broadband.

[TopperID]

Actually I'm not going to knock AVG because I know that a lot people of use it successfully and like it. So really I'm just sticking up for my preference.

There never will be agreement on what is the 'best', so we all just have to take our choice!

But personally I would never make a choice based on the GUI, for me performance is the prime consideration.

[clansman77]

yes if you are on dialup dont use antivir ,but if you are on broadband its a good choice..remember avast will boost its detection with version 5 soon..

[RejZoR]

VB100% is not something that i would rely on...

[WonderingStranger]

Hi...
AntiVir (http://www.free-av.com) is what I've used for years. Never had any problem or failure with it.
Light on resources, the team is fast to update the sig list, completely free (doesn't even require a registration).
Avast I tried several times, but never liked the UI (small problem) nor couldn't get it to run properly on my XP (big problem), despite several attempts at different times.
AntiVir updates its sigs very regularly, and is extremely fast on any new alert, and the engine itself is regularly updated too.
No need to scan emails as far as I'm concerned. The AntiVirGuard scanner catches anything suspicious that even intends to try to rise.
Very best choice to me.
Cheers

[squash]

AVG
Stable, reliable, hardly ever crashes, free, small updates, nice consistent Windows UI instead of skinned app.

[TopperID]

{QUOTE-> AVG.....hardly ever crashes, <-QUOTE}
You want to try one that doesn't crash! ;D ;D :P

[bigc73542]

From past experience I would say AVG7 or Avast and in my opinion I think Avast has the edge. ;)

[rdsu]

1. avast! HE
2. AntiVir PEC
3. AVG FE

old computer: AntiVir PEC

[iwod]

{QUOTE-> yes if you are on dialup dont use antivir ,but if you are on broadband its a good choice..remember avast will boost its detection with version 5 soon.. <-QUOTE}


According to the avast forum version 5 is certainly not coming out this year.

And as i said 4.6 is already very much improved over 4.1.........

[The Hammer]

I may be wrong about this, but I believe the FREE Avast does not have script scanning but the paid does. Also Antivir scored better at AV-Comparitives. PC Flank has a review of AVG7.0

[mercurie]

Creature Bellgamin,
Thanks a bunch friend. For your post. I am willing to try Antivir. Often seriuosly considered the change. Is it lighter then AVG 7? My only hesitation is the large downloads. I am on broadband. If I have heard correctly from other posts, they keep loading the entire signature base with each update instead of just building on current signature base. Have I got that right? All comments are welcome. ;)

[Arup]

I switched to Avast when Anti Vir failed to detect a infected system file, Avast scans offline and can repair and detect infected system files with ease, I posted for help at Anti Vir forum and all they told me was to get another program, I did and have never looked back ever since.

[fourdots]

No matter how much "I have been using XXX Free for 10 years and it has never missed a virus!" BS you read in forums, never in history has a "free" anti-virus outperformed the likes of KAV, NOD32, DrWeb, etc.

The truism "You get what you pay for!" applies equally to anti-virus programs!

[bellgamin]

{QUOTE-> Creature Bellgamin,
Thanks a bunch friend. For your post. I am willing to try Antivir. Often seriuosly considered the change. Is it lighter then AVG 7? <-QUOTE}Yes.



{QUOTE-> My only hesitation is the large downloads. I am on broadband. If I have heard correctly from other posts, they keep loading the entire signature base with each update instead of just building on current signature base. Have I got that right? <-QUOTE}Again, yes. Another "con" I failed to mention is that AVPEC's server gets VERRRY busy at times. Downloads are best done between 1AM-430AM Germany time. Get a free WorldTime clock HERE (http://www.programming.de/).

[JayTee]

1 vote for antivir.

light on resources and surfing is good. use it on my laptop where i don't do dangerous stuff.

had major problems with avast (couldn't update) and it did seem a bit resouce hungry. the spinning 'a' also made me dz ... :)

[RejZoR]

{QUOTE-> No matter how much "I have been using XXX Free for 10 years and it has never missed a virus!" BS you read in forums, never in history has a "free" anti-virus outperformed the likes of KAV, NOD32, DrWeb, etc.

The truism "You get what you pay for!" applies equally to anti-virus programs! <-QUOTE}

I wouldn't agree with that. avast! and AntiVir (also AVG) are actually both payable programs. Their free little brothers are basically the same in terms of detection (engine and definitions wise). It's just a matter of extra features in form of more settings,some extra module like Script Blocking or POP3 scanner etc...
So what payable avast! Pro detects,that will be also detected by avast! Home (Free). Same applies to AntiVir and AVG.

And avast! usually has a better response time for threats than lets say Symantec or McAfee. I agree,free ones lack strong generic engines for Rbots and other similar stuff (but on the other hand,NAV also lacks it).

[The Hammer]

The latest AVAST 4.6 is said to be lighter on resources than previous version.
Perhaps RejZoR would know of other improvements and if I am correct on resource usage.

[FastGame]

I think Avast! is the best of the free AV's, it's also one of the most versatile (free or payed) do to it's layered module system.

My Avast! is setup to use Mail scan and Webshield, my download manager & Firefox are directed to scan all downloads with the on-demand scanner. Using this setup I don't need Standard shield running and that makes Avast! zippy fast, even on an older slow PC :)

I use Bitdefender online scan or eScan MWAV 4.4.7 too verify that Avast! is doing a great job.

[RejZoR]

avast! will soon gain some nice detection boost.
Alwil team is working hard in these days :)
They have implimented FSG,MEW and PE_Deminisher unpacker into new avast! beta. They also updated UPX unpacking engine to unpack latest UPX packed executables. Certanly a nice addition which makes avast! even more unique... :P

[clansman77]

{QUOTE-> My Avast! is setup to use Mail scan and Webshield, my download manager & Firefox are directed to scan all downloads with the on-demand scanner. Using this setup I don't need Standard shield running and that makes Avast! zippy fast, even on an older slow PC <-QUOTE}

hi that is a nice suggestion ..gonna try that.will make it even lighter..

[mercurie]

{QUOTE-> I wouldn't agree with that. avast! and AntiVir (also AVG) are actually both payable programs. Their free little brothers are basically the same in terms of detection (engine and definitions wise). It's just a matter of extra features in form of more settings,some extra module like Script Blocking or POP3 scanner etc...
So what payable avast! Pro detects,that will be also detected by avast! Home (Free). Same applies to AntiVir and AVG.

And avast! usually has a better response time for threats than lets say Symantec or McAfee. I agree,free ones lack strong generic engines for Rbots and other similar stuff (but on the other hand,NAV also lacks it). <-QUOTE}All,
Still doing my homework on these posts, but Rejzor is right a slam on the freebies is not warranted. AV's are close to being a commodity. Freebies are pretty good. Just do not rely on them for total protection. Get a trojan killer too. I recommend BoClean or A2. By the way I have pay on one machine and freebie on the other so I am speaking from some experience.

[RejZoR]

Well from my experience i'd rather rely on avast! than on F-Prot. Review or not,i was very dissapointed with this PAYABLE antivirus(missed loads of stuff that others picked,including avast!). Same goes for Norton and Norman.
Thats why i don't classify free antiviruses as unrealiable,because thats certanly not true. This especially applies to avast! and AntiVir which are very powerful.

[mercurie]

F-Prot is not that the real expensive one? :P :P :P

[mercurie]

Sorry my mistake $29US is not bad. :-[ Realtime scanner... :P