hate all antiviruses

So your poor experience is more important than any AV comparative? because most of the comparatives are not agree with you.

 

have a look in the norton or kaspersky forum. you can see there enough infected pcs

 

Wow, are you sure?
Can you honestly name any AVs that have a bigger interface than avast! v5?

 

We are getting OFF-TOPIC guys...

 

All too true.

 

I see the situation differently. First, if you search for the word “infected” on Symantec’s forum for Norton Internet Security/Norton AntiVirus, there are only 500 threads containing that term within the most recent 12 month period (or only about 1.4 per day on average). Second, you need to interpret such an observation in context: with a huge installed user base, the instances of infected PCs on a proportional basis may be comparatively rare.

 

sorry mate, but those were his exact words

 

That is not true, just looking at the forums from those company's prove to show there users still get infected. It all really depends on the user. I have used 4 different av's and I did not get infected with any of them.

 

It may be some luck, but I have used Norton, Bit Defender, Avast, F-Secure, Kaspersky, and Avira. I have never been infected, but I do know a few who have while using some of those AVs. For my part I could never tell if one was more effective than the others since I did not get infected. So for me it is what runs best, and I do depend upon AV Comparatives for information that may help. I do not want an AV that is very far from the top.

I am convinced that some degree of layering is necessary as some malware such as some rogues seem to get past AVs, and accordingly another application such as MBAM is useful.
In the past among my friends AVG free was the overwhelming favorite. I did not learn of any of them getting infected in spite of its mediocre showing in years past.

I Love AVs.

Regards,
Jerry

 

A quick look around either of the two aforementioned forums will reveal that most infected posters don't actually use the term "infected".
I can also assure you that the overwhelming majority of victims don't bother to register and post either.

 

I know how you feel. Right now am using only ClamWin and an UNSAFE browser because I hate the safe-browser issue too. (Running Win 98 SE helps too!) No plans to run an AV/AM, just a good free HIPS.

Dave

P.S. There was a time when when most AV's were so light and EFFECTIVE. No longer the case.

 

I disagree, but you are welcome to rerun the “search experiment” using whatever set of terms you prefer and to report the results. (Note that the Symantec forum apparently uses stemming in its search, so all variations of “infected” [e.g., infection, infections, etc.] are returned.)

This is almost certainly true. However, you can multiply my previously reported findings by 10, or by 100, or even by 1,000 and the basic conclusion remains unaltered.

 

i do not mean, search for the frase infected, i mean you can see the infected pcs or better the threads.

 

Actually my "poor" experience fits AV-Comparatives' tests as well as other organisations' ones.
Norton (a paid product) became last year's AV product of the year . NOD32 and Kaspersky (both paid) have been products of the year.

Avast , AVG - never have been and never will be .

Last year's dynamic test performed by AVC :
Norton and Kasperky (both paid) were the best.

 

It is not about if they get infected or not . It is about who gets infected more and what program can deal with real problems better .

Imagine you have a free program Avast and a paid program Norton .
Norton comes with free tech support , Avast free comes with free forum support . They user has tried everything and still can't uninstall their AV product . Who will be the first one to reach a support person (real live person to communicate with) ? The Norton one. Avast one will need to way some time in forum to get help from mostly voluneteers.

A big company like Symantec in the US and Kaspersky in Russia with so many resourses can deal with a given problem better and faster (e.g. a new malware) than a free company . Have a look at this recent test (just an example , nothing more) :
http://www.pcworld.com/article/1993...are_often_misses_new_malware.html?tk=rss_news

(Smaller companies deal with a problem in a slower manner than a big one) . Big companies offer paid product . I still keep my word and my opinion that "you get what you have paid for" and "there is no free lunch!"

Believe it or not , that is reality.

P.S. I also fully support Pleonasm's words - absolutely correct.

 

If you want to belive that your security is better because you pay It's ok for me but dont try to convince other people about this crap

 

While I hope that the “smaller companies” survive and thrive because competition drives innovation, I am not optimistic. The trajectory of the development of malware and of the anti-malware industry suggests that we will see a continued bifurcation: the big will get bigger, and the small with languish. It simply takes big resources to fight a big problem, and the smaller anti-malware companies (especially those lacking many paying customers) will be at a severe competitive disadvantage in the months and years to come, in my opinion.

 

I really like the smaller company's, it's just something about them that I want to support. When I hunt malware I normally send the samples to the smaller company's because I want them to grow better.

 

what about avira free. about 99 % detection and, like the name say, free :d

 

My point of view is that nobody pay attention to other alternatives, you dont even need to have an AV on real time in order to protect you PC.
This are 2 example of many:
Comodo Sanbox + D+, you can test it against as many 0day malware that you want and you still will be 100% safe.
Sandboxie
...

Also in the last dynamic test
Microsoft and Avast two FREE av's got 96 of 100
Avira FREE 97 of 100
Norton and karspersky 99 of 100
This little differece is important to spend 40$ every year? If we take into account that the total sample was just 100, and you have to make a effort in order to try to infect your computer, the answer is NO.
And what happens with all the other paid AV's worst in this comparative than the free ones? are they better now because you paid for it? What are you going to tell to a person that spend his money in an AV and then is worse than the free ones?
What happens if in the next dynamic test karspersky and Norton score bad? what will be the excuse?
On-demand scan Avira has been always the best one and it's FREE!

 

This "little" difference (little in your OWN opinion) is what makes the difference between infected and non-infected . In page 7 of this report you'll notice that Norton actually scored 99+1 % because on the last sample (antimalware.exe) Norton's Insight actually triggers a yellow warning about a suspicious and unknown file. There are many thing you get when you pay for a given software and it is not only the simple AV tests that you look at .

It is also the reality which shows that big companies with paid products do score better in the real world. AVIRA , MSE and Avast you give as an example are still mostly signature-based products and they rely on an out-dated technology . Of course , so does some paid companies but they are the small ones who doesn't have the resourses to invest in innovation and modern technologies to fight modern threats.

Do yourself a simple test :
install Avast 5 free (if you want even a beta build) and try to infected the computer using 20 samples you take on average - example : you can take from the popular MDL but there are many other not so popular resourses
install Norton 2011 beta and try to infect a computer using the same 20 samples.
Be honest and use default settings.

Try to contact Avast support and see their initial reaction time.
Try to contact Norton Support and see their initial reaction time.

I am sure you'll notice the difference!

 

I don’t think it is productive to argue about generalities, claiming that many or most paid anti-malware products are better than some free alternatives (or the opposite). Clearly, both positions can cite counterexamples to support their case.

Whatever the state of protection provided by anti-malware products today, I suspect that we’ll see larger discrepancies in the test results in the not too distant future and the discriminating factor will be the resources that each vendor places in the continued development and enhancement of its products. So, from my viewpoint, the key issue is not really about “paid versus free” but is about “those with substantial resources versus those with few resources.” In the latter category are, I believe, many of the smaller companies with a large proportion of non-paying customers, unfortunately.

It would not surprise me in the least to learn that Symantec, for example, spends more on paperclips and other office supplies than some of these smaller companies spend on research & development in total. As a consequence, it’s difficult to imagine that the long-term viability of these minor vendors is strong.

P.S.: I hope that I am wrong.

 

If that's the case, haven't Symantec heard of the Internet and paperless documents? (Joke. )

 

First of all A vs B is not allowed so we don't want to get this thread closed. Second let me ask you this Panda Cloud is free and Panda detected the most samples on the latest AV-C test (I am not counting FP's) So that is free does that make it worse because it's free even though it detected the most (or one of the most I don't remember the detection numbers) Now lets talk about Trend Micro, because Trend Micro cost, does that make it better?

 

Every unknown file for norton is supicious... what a intelligent system I can also do that whiout spend resources xD
If I do this test both systems will be infected.
I can use Comodo and execute all the files even the files detected by CAV and my computer will be 100% clean for free.

Norton support will say use MBAM to clean your computer...

My computer have never been infected since I remember let's say 10 years, and I have been always using free security software so tell me what is the difference?
I will tell you, I have save 400$ more damage that most of the malware can do.