eTrust or AntiVir

I'm curious about people's views on which would provide the better protection... eTrust EZ Antivirus (12 months free via Microsoft) or Antivir Personal Edition. Thanks.

 

I believe that Antivir is better...
eTrust isn't so good...

 

AntiVir 7 without any doubt. The team behind version 7 really did an excellent job.

 

eTrust is a wonderful simple to use and fully automatic AV scanner for people who know nearly nothing about security issues and just want to be protected without having to configure a program. Updating is fully automatic. I't's certainly not the best, but I find it very strong for newbies.

Antivir 7 is a great and also very simple to use AV scanner, without heavy configuration and I think gives a better protection, but it does not scan e-mail as eTrust does. Personally I like the email scanning option, as I find it a good feeling to have things detected before it reaches it's target!
It's also updated fully automatic!!!!
Detection is better than eTrust!!!!!

 

Antivir would give much better protection.

But detection abilities should not be your only criteria for choosing between the two. For example, if you are on dial-up I would recommend eTrust instead.

 

I agree, AntiVir if you have broadband, if not, then eTrust EZ Antivirus.

 

Have EZ-Trust on desktop, used for OutlookExpress/Hotmail, MS Message and 'safe' surfing.
(Along with SpywareBlaster, AdAware and SpyBot w/immunize.)

This had been an offer for "one year free or two years for price of one ($24.95)"
within a few months, she saw a PopUp from CA that "payment was due"
and she paid the $24.95 and they added another year to the free one.

Replaced NAV with AntiVir on my main system and truely love it,
its "Guard" will stop you if you try to open an Infected Email Attachment
and I appreciate that it has a reported detection rate that doubles EZ-Trust's.

I have both on 56K Dial-Up and the difference is that you never see EZ doing anything,
but AntiVir always puts up a tiny minimized window in the upper right corner for 10 seconds to two minutes
(average is well below a minute) and Updates you immediately upon connection (incremental updates).

I prefer it to work that way, but sure it could be set to do it in in an invisible mode.

AntiVir "free" has increased from 3 to 8 download servers within the past month,
they keep the largest reported 'Signature' database, but usually only download 20
to 30KB update three times a day (if you 'dial' three or more times).

Dial-Up or not, I prefer AntiVir but have no complaint with EZ-Trust and suggest that SpywareBlaster,
AdAware and SpyBot w/Immunize be installed as well (they require manual updating).

For my main system, I also have ZoneAlarm (free) and AntiHook and they add complexity with their "Should we allow?" boxes.
The EZ-Trust System gets some of those through SpyBot's Immunize.

When the EZ-Trust paid subscription expires, will switch that system to AntiVir!

 

Thats not true. AntiVir 7 does show a small window on updates, but you can disable this in Scheduler settings (change from Minimized to Hidden).
Then it will update silently. And they are working on servers too.
If i heard correctly they now have 8 servers even for free edition.
It also appears to update without any problems latelly.

 

which ever feels better on your system... you cant go wrong with either of them.

 

In the past I would have said eTrust, but as of late Antivir has really made some great strides in their program and now I would have to: recommend Antivir over eTrust for raw detection but I would go with eTrust on ease of updates. Personally I would rather have the better detection

 

Isnt so good, please explain ??

 

Sure AntiVir 7 should scan emails. I've never heard of any AV software out there (free or paid) that does not scan emails. To me if an AV product does not scan emails than it redeemed useless.

 

Well you know wrong. F-Prot, one of very well known and respected AVs doesn't scan e-mails in any way. It relies on On-Access file scanner.

 

The paid version of Antivir does scan e-mails, so I don't know what everyone is griping about. The free version is fine, it catches the stuff before it starts, so whats the difference? The guard will catch everything on-access. You could also get an e-mail account that has a virus scanner on the server which would be an extra layer of security. Just my opinion though...

Alphalutra1

 

I had left it 'Default' and as I like to see what is happening, that is fine

I see now that 'edit job' has the "invisible" option available, also the 'help' mentions "Additional Options":

This must be the default and is what I prefer, did notice that it did not Automatic Update on a WiFi connection,
that must come under the 24 hour setting rule.

When AntiVir replaces EZ-Trust, I will set it to run as "invisible" as possible to keep it unobtrusive for

See that you can set three levels of "Priority" on the Scan, default is "Low" and I wonder if there could be "priority" set for Update?
(Adobe has that option)

 

Of course AntiVir scans email. It scans all files that are read from, or written to, hard drive. Thus as soon as you attempt to open an email it will be scanned.

The only real difference is that email POP3 scanners will intercept infected files before they reach your HD. That does not increase your security and is more to do with convenience than safety.

With attachments, you can always have them scanned before opening by simply saving them to HD first. Again, this is more to do with convenience. But of course if you use the paid for version you get a POP3 scanner in any case.

 

I don't like and I think isn't efficient

That's all

 

Thanks for everyone's opinion. It's a great help. I'll give Antivir a go.

 

Also... any comments regarding heuristics in either product?

 

antivr eats etrust in heuristics and detection

 

How do you know that and how can you be so sure about that? I'm very curious! Pls tell me how you know this "Fact" ?

 

Because AntiVir actually detects stuff with heuristics, while i haven't seen eTrust to detect anything with them yet...

 

Antivir just updated their heuristics as well with the new heuristik 2 module that was in beta testing for about a month. It only detected two fps on my pc when it was in the midst of testing and they were corrected quickly. It's a great product, heartily recommend it!

Alphalutra1

 

Yeah but still AntiVir can never compaire to nod32 Heuristic

Because nod32 hade/has the best Heuristic long time now.

 

Yes and no. I agree NOD32 has very advanced heuristics, but BitDefender with HiVE is closing in lately. AntiVir might not compare directly with these two but my guess is that it's doing pretty well. Well see more on Retrospective test from AV-Comparatives. But in general my expectations for AntiVir are pretty high.
Well see