Speed or best protection?

Without mentioning AVs to compare, which do you think is most important: detection or speed in an AV? (by speed I mean web browsing, load times, etc.) I'd like to have both, but haven't found that yet.

 

To me, I would like detection over speed. If you don't get the virus first, speed might take a drop.

 

hm, why not both of them ?
Avira offers both speed and best protection, "My opinion"

 

Thing is, I prefer using the web guard in Avira, and that slows my browsing down. Maybe the next version will be different.

 

I'm for detection too, but don't want something too heavy.

 

I answer your question: detection. Otherwise, for max speed, use no AV at all. That will work just fine -- until...

OP said "Without mentioning AVs to compare..." If folks start naming AV apps, as Merdank has done, this thread might get closed (see HERE, young man).

 

When cure gets worse than the disease, it becomes useless... (No need to name anyone I guess )

 

nuff' said!

 

well.....sadly when av has speed the worry is security...when av is super secure...craving is for speed...till date both together remain a pipe dream....wishful thinking.....but do i wish to have them both........YES !

 

I guess i'm the odd one out, i'd take a speed over protection.

 

Speed always.All the data that i consider important on the pc is multiple times back-up just in case.

 

I want both and I get it. If I put a security program on my system and it slows it down it's uninstall time. The bottom line is speed. That' the first thing I look for. If the program slows down my computer or internet, I don't care if it scores
100% on av tests. I'm not going to use it.

 

Amazing........so many answers for this silly question.

 

Same here i always tak backup on my external.

 

And what does backing up have to do with AV scanning? It should be clean before backing it up.

 

I won't mention the name of my av as requested but I will say that the 2009 version of my internet security suite gives me both protection and speed with no noticeable slow down at all with all options at full. so it is possible to have both.


bigc

 

100% agree. I have backups and images- the ultimate protection. They don't like that here- many here want to sell AVs to a lot of paranoid users. If you get infected (I never have) who cares? Just restore with an image and you are ready to go.

 

Speed or best protection? both... try Norton 2009...

 

totally agree Buck. I now keep a backed-up image in a external hard drive and use my sig and nothing else. I get the best of both worlds.

 

ive pretty much got both. a slight slowdown but the best protection.

 

If speed is related to how much the OS is affected by the AV, then the logical thing to do is to try another AV, but I agree, detection is the most important feature of any antivirus.

If anybody is concerned about speed primarily, they should consider a defense strategy without an AV, nowadays a viable possibility. It is true that a pristine image of the OS can at any time recover any infected system, but that involves having the OS alone in a single partition. I backup everything in (C) which means I have to make sure to have a clean system (a good AV + a Virtualizer can be quite bullet proof).

 

Well, due to consumer demand, both seem to be developing. We have the Norton 2009 line, Avira's products, and also Kaspersky's all providing much faster versions with superior detection. But to answer your question, detection has to prevail over speed.

 

Detection is the first job of AV 's then comes speed and other tool. You can find both of these qualities in some suites

 

I know a lot of you say you can get both, but for me I have not found both "best detection" and "fast browsing." I'm leaning towards speed since I have a fast connection, and most of the main AVs provide a decent level of protection.

 

I personally would say detection. I never really cared about speed. But of course, nowadays both are being developed, but one 'better/faster' than the other.