I AM DETERMINED!AVG is better.

I've had three different "Aunty V's" on various systems...
McAfee's, Norton's, and AVG.

On my older, and lesser machines, almost anything that consumed system resources would either freeze me, or slow things down to where they were no longer usable.

As my PC's got updated, I tried the "pay for it" method of virus detection, and removal.

On my IBM 365, running at 233Mhz with only 64Mb of RAM, I couldn't do any form of active scanning without a complete siezure. Even AVG, which is fairly gentle on resources, had to scan from the constantly updated set of "rescue" disks I kept.

Now, my machine is a new HP, with a P-4, running at 2.35Ghz, with 512Mb of RAM. It came with Norton antivirus pre-installed (90 day 'free' trial) It scans everything, both going, and coming...well, it 'says' it does, anyway.

As with all the rest, if it misses something, how are you to know? The only way is by symptoms, and by keeping tabs on what is running.

I think it comes down to what you have 'faith' in, not what you pay. I would imagine that any antivirus program (reputable?) is going to do the job, as long as it's properly (and knowledgeably) set up, and run.

I don't know if I'm going to continue with Norton after the trial period runs out, bad experiences with them in the past (unanswered e-mail, unresponsive support desks) led me to install AVG on my other machines. I like the configurability that comes with AVG, and also the fact that it's free. I set it to use heuristics, to start with boot up, to use the plug in for OE, and to scan ALL files, rather than executables. I also scan everything I download as the final step as the files are being written to my D'load folder.

I also like the fact, that it put's the message on my outgoing mail, giving the database date, and that the contents are certified.

There were several viral attachments stopped by AVG, that came as e-mail from known persons, and more than several, that came from 'unrequested' mailings. It makes me feel safe, and I know that I am playing an active part in protecting myself, and anyone else I contact via the web, or e-mail.

I also run Zone Alarm Pro, I used the free version for a while, but found it not quite right, the way it did things, and wanted to have more control.

Just a passing thought...who would have the most to gain from a virus outbreak? the guys giving protection away for free?...or the folks with something to sell, like protection from a virus that they recently 'discovered'

 

To Goldsmith:

I'm not bashing AVG at all here. It just seems that a lot of the fans of AVG say things that just don't make sense.

For example, you mentioned not having any support with NAV so you went with AVG which has no support whatsoever on the free version. Are you saying that support is important or not? Because when you talk about bad experiences with NAV you make it sound like that's one of the main reasons you changed - the lack of support - but you moved to something without any support at all. Doesn't make sense.

Second is the certified stamp on emails. Certified against what? What does a little statement prove to anyone besides giving a false sense of security? I've seen those things on emails where the database date was like 2 months before the date of the email. Point is, even with the little stamp, that doesn't mean anything really.

On the free vs. fee thing there might be something to that argument. The same kind of thing could be said for free security tool makers though. If you want to talk conspiracy theories why not produce a free security tool, make sure it won't stop a certain type of malicious code or behavior, and then try and sell people on your paid version after they get infected or hacked.

Just my 2 cents.

 

I've written the folks at AVG twice, and BOTH times, I got a response (not an automated "go to our website" message)

NONE of the times that I asked Norton for help, did I get ANY response!
They are too busy with their bottom line(IMO)

Support of software products is VERY important to me, in fact, I don't often use unsupported software for very long.

The certification on my outgoing e-mails, certifies that the content was checked by my AVG antivirus program, against the virus database that is presently current on my system. I updated the program AT LEAST once a day.

I have only once been infected by a virus (to my knowledge), and at the time, I was running McAfee,s PAID version. My hard drive was completely wiped!!!

"Sense of security" There IS no security, only the ability to be as secure as possible, so any sense of security could be considered "false"

We can only take all the precautions we can, and stay alert.

If you turn on your computer, and connect to the net, or put in any media or programs, then you are at risk, for all I know, signals can be hacked into this box through secret signals in the AC current I supply to it.

I keep my guard up, and deal with real people, that I trust.
"Paranoia" is the belief in "imaginary" threats. I think once a threat has been imagined...it's no longer "imaginary"

The world is filled with self serving, greedy companies, out to make a profit from other folks fears.

There's also a surprisingly large number of people who care. They are known by their actions...seek them out.

 

Well said.

I went from a paid Anti Virus product to trying AVG Free for several months, after I was infected with a fully up-to-date AVG, I went hunting for testing sites and found http://www.virusbtn.com/vb100/latest_comparative/index.xml

At this point I wasn't prepared to listen to every "Backyard Expert", I wanted to know from experienced, unbiased and independent people what actually was the BEST, with history at being the BEST.

I had put 3 friends onto AVG as they thought they could not afford Virus protection, all 3 became infected over the next 6 months, all 3 now have Nod32.

I do NOT care what AV anyone uses, for me I just want the best, FULL STOP! And there are ALWAYS going to be "Backyard Experts" that know best, and their way is the only way, no matter what evidence is set before them, I am NOT one of these people, and have NO time for such people...

In regards to AVG, I wish you well in your choice...

Cheers

 

> At this point I wasn't prepared to listen to every "Backyard Expert", I wanted to know from experienced, unbiased and independent people what actually was the BEST, with history at being the BEST.

Every antivirus vendor will tell you that his is the best virus detector ... but there can be only one real "best" at any given time, and according to Virus Bulletin's tests, for the past five years NOD32 has consistently detected more viruses than any other program.

Some people on here and other forums regularly try to shoot Virus Bulletin's credibility down ... even to the extent of suggesting that I promote VB as the #1 antivirus product tester only because NOD32 wins every test hands down.

That's codswallop!

In the early days of computer viruses many people considered me as the #1 independent antivirus product tester in the world. I had a virus suite which was more comprehensive than any single antivirus vendor's at the time, and I knew what I was doing. When Virus Bulletin first appeared on the scene I suspected it of being (a) a bandwagon jumper out for a quick buck, or (b) a shill for Sophos ... but I was wrong. After a few months of publication I could see that the guys at Virus Bulletin weren't just glorified computer journalists but real "antivirus men" who knew what they were doing ... they had a virus suite which was almost as good as mine ... they weren't playing favorites ... and their test results were always within a cat's whisker of my own. That made them pretty damn good in my book.

When I became professionally involved in the antivirus industry I quit antivirus product testing, apart from testing opposition products from time to time for my own benefit. Since that day I've gone on record many times supporting Virus Bulletin as the best and fairest of all professional antivirus product evaluators.

The figures shown in Virus Bulletin test comparisons point to "my" current program, NOD32, as being the world's #1 virus detector for the past five years ... but I distributed AVP/KAV from 1995 to 2001 ... a period which included three years of VB tests which didn't rate "my" program as #1. Even so, throughout those years I still maintained that VB was the best and fairest of all professional evaluators.

Virus Bulletin gives no-one a second chance at the VB100 Award. There's no providing you with samples of missed viruses so you can fix your program and submit it again for a second bite of the VB100 cherry ... if you miss detection first time around, you get the black mark ... and imo that's a Good Thing.

I've had my fights with Virus Bulletin, and I don't agree 100% with their test parameters ... but everyone has to play by the same rules, and unless/until VB changes those rules, they're the best and fairest the industry has to offer.

> And there are ALWAYS going to be "Backyard Experts" that know best, and their way is the only way, no matter what evidence is set before them,

Yep ... there's a self-appointed "virus expert" on every streetcorner ... and they all know more about antivirus program testing than Virus Bulletin. Just ask them and they'll tell you.

> I am NOT one of these people, and have NO time for such people...

I try my best to be tolerant, but my tolerance wears thin when said "virus experts" ignore the facts (or cast aspersions on Virus Bulletin's competence/honesty/integrity) and start trying to feed me camel pellets. Occasionally I'll hit back at perps with a flame (which usually goes right over their pointy heads, but provides amusement for other readers) but mostly I just drop the thread. Like you, I simply can't be bothered with such people.

 

To Rodzilla:


What do you think of the ICSA Labs tests versus Virus Bulletins? What do you think the difference is in results between the two?

From what you've said here and other places I see you trust Virus Bulletin. Do you trust any other review sites or results?

And finally, do you really think that the ZDNet/Cnet group are paid off somehow by McAfee and Symantec or they just give good reviews to whoever spends the most in advertising? I don't ask that question because I've necessarily seen you say it but I've seen a lot of sites that say this type thing in regards to the big magazines.

Thanks.

 

LMFAO, well said Rod

Cheers

 

> What do you think of the ICSA Labs tests versus Virus Bulletins? What do you think the difference is in results between the two?

> From what you've said here and other places I see you trust Virus Bulletin. Do you trust any other review sites or results?

I trust all professional antivirus testers to some degree ... but Virus Bulletin is the only one which doesn't charge a fee for testing, and VB gives you only one bite at the VB100 cherry. In my book, this eliminates any possible hint of suspicion of weighted results.

When NOD32 sponsored the Virus Bulletin annual conference in New Orleans last year, some people said "That's VB's payoff for rating NOD32 as the #1 detector for all those years!" How bloody ridiculous is that ? No-one with more than a single working brain cell could possibly believe that Virus Bulletin ... a publication owned by an opposition antivirus vendor ... looked at NOD32 in 1998 and said to itself "We'll give this tiny virtually unknown antivirus program a big rating for the next four years, then maybe they will make enough money to sling us a few grand to sponsor VB2002."

I trust a few (very few) commercial magazine testers ... and they're competent computer men who write for magazines ... not just "freelance contributors" who are touted as "virus experts" because they know how to start Windows and can spell "PoopScan".

Without a doubt the best in the business was Jan Wikstrom, former long-time Technical Editor of PC World, and later, Technical Editor of PC User. Jan was a highly competent hardware and software man in his own right, and he supervised a huge well-equipped testing facility ... but he was never too big in the head to ask for help with viruses, and he even worked in co-operation with Virus Bulletin to double-check his own findings. I was sorry to see him retire. He'll be a hard act to follow.

> And finally, do you really think that the ZDNet/Cnet group are paid off somehow by McAfee and Symantec or they just give good reviews to whoever spends the most in advertising? I don't ask that question because I've necessarily seen you say it but I've seen a lot of sites that say this type thing in regards to the big magazines.

You hear this "payola" question asked a lot, by a lot of different people ... questions like "When have you ever seen a heavily advertised product trashed by a review in the magazine carrying the ads ?"

Personally I'd hate to think that any editor would be a party to "good editorial in exchange for advertising dollars" ... it's a breach of professional ethics with which neither I nor Eset would ever become involved.

I prefer to think that wildly ridiculous claims (good or bad) in product reviews are down to sheer incompetence on the part of the reviewer rather than "payola" ... but a while back CNet's constant ramming of Symantec products prompted even the staid old Virus Bulletin to write .....
=====
"A little more rooting around the site revealed some heavily undisguised bias: CNET's summary of every AV product listed (a total of ten, from eight different vendors) ends with a strong recommendation of Norton AntiVirus over the product in question. The more cynical among us might wonder exactly how much Symantec forked out for such staunch loyalty."
=====
( http://www.virusbtn.com/news/latest_news/cnet.xml )

I guess we all have to make up our own minds about whether "payola" exists or not, based on our own impressions of what we read.

 

I do not agree.
If you're not a professionnal AV tester, you could make some mistake while testing AV. So awards are better value than personal experience.

It's like saying people earn much money on casino because you have won much money yourself one night. Statistics are here to show than the winner at casinos is... the casino itself.

AV software is not a subjective matter. While playing a game, you could disagree with the game tester, the game tester has perhaps loved the game, you don't, that's possible because game playing IS a subjective matter.

But AV software is an objective matter.

For example : you tested AVG and NOD32 with trojans you have on CD. First, indeed, NOD32 is not a trojan hunter. Second, perhaps on the... it's an example... 500 trojans you have on your CD, 400 are in AVG database. But perhaps also NOD32 has 1000 more in database that are not in AVG database.

And heuristic system in NOD32 is very good.

So, because you have tested NOD32 and AVG on trojans you have on one CD, you claim professionnal AV testers are wrong ?

I guess YOU missed the point. AV testing is objective, so a subjective opinion has no value.

 

I used AVG free myself before, I tried to reach support with the @grisoft.com domain (don't remember the address), and the mail returned as "relay denied".

It seems mails sent to grisoft are blocked by my provider, don't know why, perhaps grisoft.com is in some kind of black hole

 

I can... I can spell it too... popscan... oups.... poopscaan... poopscann... Damnit I will never make it

 

Well, I guess there's no room for any questioning in this "forum"?!
All I did, was express an opinion, based on my actual experiences with various antivirus products, and the "flame wars" began

I make no claim to being any kind of computer "expert", neither as a user, or programmer. I suppose that that puts me in the great majority of computer "users" who come to places like this, to learn what works, and what doesn't work in the "real" world.

There seems to be no "debate" here, only the diatribe of (so called) "real experts", who have no patience or time to waste on what they obviously consider "the ignorant masses" (like perhaps 'me')

That's fine with me, but if you want to sell me something...it takes more than an overpowering insistance in your own superiority, and "expertice", based on what you call "unbiased" testing.

C'mon, unbiased...LMAO!

Color me gone...sell it to your "expert" friends

 

well said

 

Goldsmith,

If you feel as if I have flamed you I sincerely apologize. It wasn't meant to come across that way.

My target market is people with little computer experience who take advice from their friends and the local computer store guy and the magazines. And you make some good points about catering to the masses.

I'm trying to understand all the different opinions as well as lab results on AV programs too. It just doesn't make sense, for example, the different results that ICSA has for AVG versus Virus Bulletin. Yet both will proclaim that their testing methodology is right.

I am looking for cheap and free too for my target market as well if I can feel good in recommending those solutions.

The only times I've "downed" AVG is when comments are made by avid fans who won't listen to any other view point and when those comments don't make sense.

For example, I asked the other day about AV that had daily updates like NAV. I said that I had noticed that AVG did not have daily updates and I was attacked for not looking at their website because in fact they did have daily updates. Well, another avid fan who wasn't telling it like it is. I did a little comparison and AVG had like 3 updates in the last 3 weeks and NAV had 14 or 15. So if I point out the mistake there am I wrong?

Likewise with the support thing. On the AVG site it says that there is NO technical support available for AVG free. But people say they get better technical support for the free version than they do with paid AV programs. Maybe they do, maybe they don't. If I point out what the site says and ask how the poster comes up with the notion that they get great support in direct contrast to what the company say themselves is that an attack?

And the other thing I've said is the whole idea that XXX AV has handled every virus. Well it doesn't matter which AV they are talking about the truth is that you only know about the ones your AV tells you about. And if it doesn't know about it due to faulty programming or lack of updates again the statement is a little faulty.

So I apologize if I offended you. I do want debate and I do want other opinions but the opinions have to be reasonable for there to be any beneficial discussion. The points I've made in this post I think are reasonable - not attacking but reasonable views on what seems like avid fans gone crazy."

My take on things.

 

Msingle
Very well said!!
Right on target.
Regards Ole

 

Goldsmith and all!

Everyone is entitled to his/her own opinion. Lets not fight about this. This forum is about sharing experiences and opinions among users. Nothing more, nothing less. Let keep it that why. What do you say ?

Here is my opinion:

What Antivirus is the best?
NONE. But there are a few good ones…

CONCLUSION: Everyone should stick with product that works best for him/her! Period.


Technodrome

 

Hi Tech.
Your last words concludes this topic well.
This war on words- AGV versus XXXAV has gone a little out of hands, i think.
Very fun to read though
Regards
Ole

 

> Well, I guess there's no room for any questioning in this "forum"?!

Sure there is ... provided it's sensible questioning and not just "I tested PoopScan on my script kiddie virus CD and it's the best in the world" codswallop.

> All I did, was express an opinion, based on my actual experiences with various antivirus products, and the "flame wars" began

I saw nothing wrong with your posts ... in fact I agree with your "II would imagine that any antivirus program (reputable?) is going to do the job, as long as it's properly (and knowledgeably) set up, and run." and ""Sense of security" There IS no security, only the ability to be as secure as possible, so any sense of security could be considered "false" We can only take all the precautions we can, and stay alert."

I vehemently disagree with your "Just a passing thought...who would have the most to gain from a virus outbreak? the guys giving protection away for free?...or the folks with something to sell, like protection from a virus that they recently 'discovered'" ... but that's not something I'll get into.

My responses were (obviously) aimed at the guy who originally started this thread with his codswallop post ... not at you.

> I make no claim to being any kind of computer "expert", neither as a user, or programmer. I suppose that that puts me in the great majority of computer "users" who come to places like this, to learn what works, and what doesn't work in the "real" world.

That's what Wilders Forums is all about.

> There seems to be no "debate" here,

There's plenty of debate here ... look at some of the other threads.

> only the diatribe of (so called) "real experts", who have no patience or time to waste on what they obviously consider "the ignorant masses" (like perhaps 'me')

I have a lot of patience with people who are looking for help with something they don't understand, and with people who ask serious questions ... but there is a vast difference between "I don't know" and "I know everything", and I have little tolerance for self-appointed "virus experts" and trolls.

> That's fine with me, but if you want to sell me something...it takes more than an overpowering insistance in your own superiority, and "expertice", based on what you call "unbiased" testing.

> C'mon, unbiased...LMAO!

If you're convinced that Virus Bulletin testing is "biased" then perhaps you'd be better off reading CNet.

> Color me gone...sell it to your "expert" friends

Don't fall down the steps on your way out!

 

for me, AVG6 is just fine.
I have been using it for more than a year now and it saved my pc from e-mail messages attached with files infected with YAHA.J and YAHA.M

 

I'd put my personal experience over rankings and awards
any day. And in the end, for the consumer, personal experience with the products is what wins or loses. Objective or subjective, what's best for you at this point of time may not be what is best for me at this point in time. Two years ago when I first installed AVG6 I got the same, "You get what you pay for" comment. And by now it has become a meaningless cliche. I don't know if Nod32
actually stops 70% and AVG 30%. But I do know that before
AVG I did 4 FDISK's because of infection and now 2 years later I haven't had to do any. The only reason I posted in the first place was it was beginning to sound like AVG was ditch water not fit for consumption. By now, it all looks like muddy water to me. All the professional testers can dot all the i's and cross all the t's, but when the rubber hits the road it is the consumer's personal experience that will shape his opinion...not awards and ratings.
------------------------------------------------
And support? Two years later and I've never even needed
any support. That goes straight to the top of my list, to not
need any support is better than any support response...to me anyway.

 

I also use AVG and think it is great. Other AV companies could learn alot by looking at it's UI and low resource usage, let alone the terrific price. I have loaded NOD32 and others on my machine, but keep coming back to AVG FREE.