Best FREE AV

Dqa, Thanks for setting me straight on the false positvies thing. But I still would like to know if anyone else has tried AVPE and how many false positives they had?

 

Hi notageek!

I've been trying it for several days now. No false positives yet! So far, it has been very stable and fast. And, as I said before (somewhere) it uses about half the RAM and resources that my old Norton 2002 did. With Norton my CPU would be almost peaking after an hour or so online (92%). No wonder I had so many "weird" crashes! With AntiVir my CPU is 50% or less after three hours online. The Guard/Monitor is running continuously.

I'll give it a month to really understand it, but so far this application works well and I'll keep using it. No AV or application is perfect, so I have several AV's to use as backups. One of them is AVG, another is GAV.


Best regards from Larry

 

Of course a good back-up strategy is actually more important than which AV you are using. Which is funny because I never see any passionate debates about back-up or drive image programs? Could it because most folks are not doing it? Hhhmmm

As free AVs my opinion is pretty much this, "Its better than not having one, and if you are not willing to pay for an AV please install a free one."

 

O.K. I think it all comes down to this. People will use what seems easy for them. If it seems to accomplish the task they will continue to use it. This sums up AVPE as far as I am concerned. It is simple to install and use. It (for a free virus protection program) seems to do a good job. There is a support BB for the product. AVPE seems to always be on top of current trojans/worms and viruses. Is AVPE perfect? NO! and even they will admit to that. However is any virus protection program perfect? I doubt it. SO what ever works for you, is the way to go. Just don't knock a product, unless you can support your claims with current and accurate information.

Thanks (Danke)

Wildman

 

AntiVirPE is as many other antivirus programs nearly useless against (backdoor-)trojans.

wizard

 

Larry, dont complain now about wizard's statement cuz its true.

 

Why you don't believe that, only Avast has got 5 Virus Bulletin Awards so far!

There is no room to AGV or AVPE !

"The truth is out there, but it hurts!"

Best Regards,
Firefighter!

 

Hi poor student!

It's amazing how many people read a topic when it contains the simple word "FREE"......

Till yet the statistics for this topic:

Views: 2224
Replies: 81

 

What do you want for FREE? I said AVPE wasn't perfect. I still think for FREE it does a good job. A great job? NO! A good job YES. It still is easy to install and use. Also I think IMO (HBEDV) is willing to learn and listen. I have been using this for some time now, and it is much better than it was when I started, and it gets better all the time.

Thanks (Danke)

Wildman

 

I care about reliable protection. You care about the price.

Good joke. Ask them about the internet update. Why you still have to download the whole package again almost every time new malware is released? AntiVirPE users are requesting a better solution for this crap way of updating the software years now.

That's with all malware protection programs. Isn't it?

wizard

 

Hi Wizard,

And that's the real issue!

Reliable protection is not for free, it costs a few bucks and the problem is a lot of people expects the same reliable protection of a free porgram.

 

For what it is worth I had a pay virus protection program that came bundled with my machine. The program took up masive amounts of memory, missed decting a valid virus and caused my system to lock up. So this is your answer? No I'll go with the free stuff, knowing that it is not perfect and that I have to use a little comon sense to protect myself.

Thanks (Danke)

Wildman

 

No. Your focus is just on the price and not on quality. I find this point of view very limited. For me quality and reliability of an antivirus solution counts. Two points where I personally don't see AntiVirPE be competive to the solutions I recommand/prefer.

Good luck than...

wizard

 

well just read these 6 pages of your discussions and i m prompted to get a better AV. i m using AVG but seems to me that its not enough.
anyways, i m ready to pay but can you give me a RELIABLE anti-virus solution?
don't tell me a system hogging crap like NAV, that starts to heat up a puter after a few hours of job. i scrapped NAV for AVG, for the sole reason of it being lite on resources.
so anyone have a RELIABLE AV and please guys i want 100% surity cos i m PAYING for it and i would be really greatful, if you can support your recommendations with links/proofs/facts that the particular thing is sure shot approach against all virii.

 

asklepios

Well that is a solid deduction.

Sorry to be contrary but there is nothing that is 100% security. There are always some trade offs. What would help would be if you defined a little more what you mean by 100% security.

I am making these recommendations on these assumptions:
1. Low resource use
2. Not willing to pay for multi-layered defense (trojan detector, worm detector, etc)
3. Reliability

My first two recommends would have been NOD32 and Dr Web based on your desire for a strong AV that is lite on the resources. But you would need to back both of these solutions up with other pay software for trojans and worms. NOD32 in particular is focused primarily on viruses.

So assuming you want one solution I see only three AVs that come close to meeting your needs:

1. KAV 4 Personal
2. KAV Lite
3. F-Secure
4. AVK
5. Macafee Virus Scan

Now that said, you shouldn't rely on any of our opinions. There are just that opinions (some better supported than others Below I have include links for each of the major AV test centers. Here you can find more than enough data to narrow the field down to those that meet your security needs. Once you have done that, trial each and see how it works on your system. I wouldn't buy any until you have a chance to try several and find the one that works best for you and your system.

(Only ratings not details for non-subscribers but is still useful due to the number of tests and that this such a seminal test center)
http://www.virusbtn.com/vb100/about/index.xml

http://agn-www.informatik.uni-hamburg.de/vtc/eng1.htm

(make sure to select all categories and high detail on the on-line test results)
http://www.av-test.org/sites/tests.php3?lang=en

http://www.check-mark.com/cgi-bin/redirect.pl

http://www.icsalabs.com/index

 

Hi guys,
I have for some time read a lot of discussions on this board.
And I often think, where and how do you catch up all those "nastys" which frighten you up so much *

Some background, I am working at a company with a network of about 6000 computers connected to the world. Our internet security (including F-secure 5.40) picks of course up some malware. I am fortunate to be able to use this "in the wild catched malware" for trying AV scanners on one of my home computers (just for fun). And I have done that for some years.

As this thread have become some form of competition between Antivir and AVG my contribution to this is that both works very good in praktice for "viruses" and so far have catched everything I have tested. But I also have a small collection of "backdoor/trojans (about 200). For this type of malware Antivir totally outperforms AVG. Antivir also totally outperforms some of the not free "favorites" on this board.

This was not science nor some fanatic opinion. It was just a piece from the real world. I am to tired go deeper in this.
Greetings
Zapp

* When I read on Wilders I often think that I must be a idiot which not use double safety belts and a helmet when i drive.

 

Hey if you want to throw money away, I can suggest where to throw it. You most likley will pay for something that will work no better than what one can obtain for free. No! I care about using good common sense. I don't bye the hype crapola. One must ask what they want from a virus protection program. If it is profection, they are looking for something that I doubt there is. If however they are willing to put in a little effort on their own, then AVPE is not a bad choice. I have said all along this is not perfect, but it sure sounds better than what we have seen you suggest.

Thanks (Danke)

Wildman

 

Wildman I'm not trying to get you started but I have to say some of the free AV don't update weekly (we all know which ones). But as for paying for a AV, I would pay for one any day for a little better protection like more updates and what not. It's said here all the time (among other places ) you get what you pay for.

 

Hey if you buy that, I got a bridge I'll sell you at a good price. I told you, I had a pay virus protection program. Frankly it wasn't worth a damn. It took up vast amounts of memory, didn,t catch a valid virus and caused my system to lock up. NO! I do not believe you get what you pay for.

Thanks (Danke)

Wildman

 

Wildman.
Perhaps i missed the name( there are seven pages in this thread now), but
whats the name of the useless paid AV, your talking about.
If you DO believe you get the same protection, you are ofcourse free to do so.
I think the various test mentioned by many here, prove otherwise.

Pro & cons and choice of AV , sometimes takes almost religious propertions.
Just my opinion.
Regards
Ole

 

Hi again,

(Probably) the last comment from me on this one- after all, I don't care all that much what software anyone wants to use...



With all the good ol' folksy wisdom about 'You get what you pay for', though, I wondered if any of the posters here make their living from the computer security business, and might just have a vested interest in propogating that point of view?



Chris H.

 

"You get what you pay for" well, sometimes. A reminder, though, that these FREE AV's such as Avast, AVG, Antivir have commercial versions in which the detection rates may not be at all different than the free versions. That is true for AVG and Avast as they use the same engine and sig defs. Dunno about Antivir and its commercial version. So the performance (plus or minus) of the free version is usually a reflection on a commercial product as well.

That is to say, if the detection rate of any of these is considered not so good (or if it is wonderful) t is not because the product is free. One could pay for the commercial version and get the same results.

 

Hi sig,

Good point. And, for your information, Antivir too uses the same engine and virus definitions for its professional and personal editions...



best wishes,

Chris H.

 

O.K. I will name the pay Virus program. It was McAfee's Virus Scan.

Thanks (Danke)

Wildman