BitDefender

Surprised there isn't more said about BitDefender in these forums. Did some testing tonight and along with ESET, BitDefender did a fantastic job in protecting against numerous threats.

Experiences? Are you using BitDefender? Quite impressed with it.

 

Bitdefender AV engine IMO is very good, the problem is that according to most users (I've never used Bitdefender) their products lags their systems.

 

BitDefender is indeed a good engine, but it has two major disadvantages:

1. it is slow;
2. it is buggy as hell.
Also I think the GUI and the whole presentation to the user ain't that great, it is confusing, and not really easy to use.

If you are impressed by BitDefender, I have got a suggestion for you, try F-Secure. It uses the same engine, plus added F-Secure in-house technologies (DeepGuard [behavior-based + reputation-based, which is really improving] and BackLight [anti-rootkit]). Next to that it fixed all the bugs, it is extremely easy to use, and it's performance is better than BitDefender's. Althought it uses quite a lot of processes.

 

Yep, very very buggy.

Use a product which uses the bitdefender engine and you are good...

Bullguard for example offers excellent malware protection.

 

Bitdefender has been amongst the top contenders in the recents test and infact they do have a really good engine but it lacks when used for a long run. You can browse over their forum and there you can find many unsatisfied users posting their grievances regarding BD not working properly

 

+100% Agree with you!

 

GData uses both Bitdefender and Avast engines. What do you think of GData?

 

You can also consider ImmunetProtect Plus (BitDefender + ClamAV Cloud). It is very good against threats and with very few bugs.

 

Good detection but slow as all multi engine AV vendors..

 

I agree with boyfriend. When I had immunet plus running, it did a great job at catching threats. I was very surprised. It also doesn't slow down your system like bitdender does. I had tried bitdefender AV when they had the free license giveaway. It did slow things down a little.

 

GData's removal capabilities aren't as good as others.

 

I used it for several hours and didn't notice any bugs. Obviously a short sample size, but no issues.

I was trialing Bitdefender Internet security. I actually though the GUI was quite impressive. Very well laid out and looked good to me. Perhaps people are thinking of older versions?

I didn't notice any slow down on the system at all. In fact, my system ran as light as it does with ESS on it, which has proven to be the lightest I've used.

As for detection, it did very well. 100% in fact, in what I threw at it. Basically did the same as ESS did. The only difference I noticed, was that Bitdefender required a reboot to rid the system of all malware that I tested it with, while ESS did not.

Oh and I did try F-Secure at one point and time and it completely screwed my Internet connection up. Not sure what happened, but I had to rollback because I could not get Internet, no matter what I did. Once I rolled back (prior to the install) all was fine again. I also thought F-Secure was very heavy on the system.

In my testing last night, for those interested, I threw 50 zero day malware links at these and rebooted to give them a chance to find something in memory, etc. - ESS, CIS and Bitdefender all stopped everything. They did quite amazing actually. Both AVG and Avira failed big time.

 

Nice . This proofs that in the end everybody should base their opinion on their own experiences, and how it is performing on their own system. Kind of funny you are experiencing the problems with F-Secure, and I did with BitDefender. The world upside down.
My opinions were based on BitDefender 2011 directly after it was released, so in fact they could have fixed all the bugs and performance issues I have experienced by now.

But I agree with you that ESET is great, I am using it for a very long time now. And it is too only antivirus which doesn't have any major disadvantage in my eyes.

 

I ve tested (as in installing -> doing browsing and so on ,not runnning virus related tests) latelly F-Secure ,BitDefender and Bullguard (the free gift for few weeks ago).
From all of them BD 2011 AV was the most easy to my system.F-Secure was killing my sytem at a full scan and Bullguard was slowing the system to 0 in same ocasions when i was simply exploring .
If i would to test one of this i would try BD 2011 and see how it works.It has some bugs ,but relly depends on the system what you get.

BD 2011 AV seems much better than BD 2010 or BD 2009 releases and the installation routine is extremely user friendly now ,maybe the most user friendly on the market. Anyway lighter than Avast isn t so ...

 

It refers to the scanning speed of the on-demand-scanner.
Although, in the latest version have achieved a decent speed

 

I was a old user of BitDefender, and i can tell you that it has a great engine.
I liked BD 2010, and it is the lightest version that BD have ever produce. But when i migrate to 2011, i've seen many bugs witch didn't exist in 2010... We hope that we can use BD without major bugs...

 

my last experience with bitdefender 2011: installer crashed, the first time I remember any AV crashing my system in the installation, what it could have done once installed.

 

The thing is that, BitDefender must be installed in a clean version of Windows...
Because many bugs come with that.

 

Bitdefender and f-secure are suitable for fast internet connections with unlimited download limit. Bitdefender continues to buffer a download or a video stream even if the web page or the download is cancelled halfway thereby wasting bandwidth. Turning off http scan doesn't help and I have to exclude the browser from http scan by applying a registry tweak in safe mode. The 2011 internet security version was heavier when I last tried it.

 

Nice dude Give your views after sufficient evaluating

 

it defends but wont let anything else to happen..when installed it made me go back memory lane and think about the old ages and slow pc's..its good if you wanna walk the memory lanes once in a while..

 

BitDefender was a great AV back when it was version 7, 8 and 9 which the plus version included a firewall, but now! why oh why did they have to go and fix what was not broken

 

I guess it got a little buggy these few years because they've been adding lots of new layers
But IMO i think Bitdefender should give a pretty good overall protection as a suite

 

I ve tryed installing it again on some other config ,but because the download speed of the kit was slow i ve directly downloaded the AV trial build from bitdefender "hidden" download site.
I dont know if the version they had there was older than the one it downloads via the little downloado-installer ,but this time the installation failed.
Once it was going to finalize the installation ,after disableing or not Windows Defender (on XP ?!) it would get stuck ,meaning a hard reset needed .Tryed 3 times to install it and needed 3 resets.
So from 2 installations on 2 machines one failed .
It also tryed to uninstall Malwarebytes ,but it did it at half ,removed the Add/remove entry but left the Malwarebytes folder fully populated .It stated failed uninstall ,but at the next install run (one of the 3) it did not detected Malwarebytes again.
50 percent chances to install it on a machine with other antivirus leftovers.So self protections drivers are really badly coded.
Good luck installing it

 

As other have mentioned, this program is very buggy. I was having a lot of issues in Vitualbox. Thought maybe the two programs were not compatible, so I tried installing on my production machine, and have had even more issues right from the start. Most betas I have tested have been more mature than this.